The Home Office has today hit back at being held accountable for any decision taken regarding Prince Harry's security row and said the "fallout" from that comes from the "the democratically-accountable decisionmaker". The Duke of Sussex is currently appearing on the second day of his appeal over his security while in the UK.

Harry is challenging the dismissal of his High Court claim against the Home Office over the decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) that he should receive a different degree of taxpayer-funded protection when in the country.

Last year, High Court judge Sir Peter Lane ruled that Ravec's decision, taken in early 2020 after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex quit as senior working royals, was not irrational or procedurally unfair.

The Home Office, which has legal responsibility for Ravec's decisions, is opposing the appeal, with its lawyers previously telling the High Court that decisions were taken on a "case-by-case" basis. But today, the Home Office dismissed any responsibility if a ruling of a wrong decision is made, telling the court that the body is a "delegate" of the Home Secretary, who is "the democratically accountable decisionmaker".

In oral submissions about the role of Ravec, Sir James Eadie KC, for the Home Office, said: "If the wrong decision is made, the fallout from that comes to the Secretary of State."

Sir James continued: "She is the democratically accountable decisionmaker, and Ravec is operating through her. Ravec is able to draw upon expertise and is itself expert and experienced in a thoroughly important way."

He later said Ravec's decisions "are made in the context of and about security, including national security".

The current holder of the Home Secretary position is Labour's Yvette Cooper. In 2020, when the decision to downgrade Prince Harry's decision was taken, the role was held by the Tories' Priti Patel.

Yesterday, the duke told the court that he and his wife, Meghan Markle, "felt forced" to step down as senior working members of the Royal Family back in 2020 as they thought they were "not being protected by the institution".

Shaheed Fatima KC, for the Duke of Sussex, said in a written submission to the Court of Appeal: "This appeal concerns the most fundamental right: to safety and security of person.

"On January 8 2020, (the Duke of Sussex) and his wife felt forced to step back from the role of full-time official working members of the royal family as they considered they were not being protected by the institution, but they wished to continue their duties in support of the late Queen as privately funded members of the royal family."

Ms Fatima later said that Harry was "not in a position to make any informed representations to Ravec".

She added: (His) security does not appear to have been discussed at any formal Ravec meeting and there are no official notes or detailed minutes recording the approach to be taken to (his) security and the rationale for it."

Elsewhere, she said that Ravec did not get an assessment from an "expert specialist body called the risk management board, or the RMB" and came up with a "different and so-called 'bespoke process"'.

The hearing before Sir Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Bean, and Lord Justice Edis is due to conclude on Wednesday with a decision expected in writing at a later date.