Prince HarryAn unconventional decision to deviate from royal duties and spend most of their time abroad, encouraged Ravec to deviate from the standard protocol in decision-making to reduce his publicly funded security.

A lawyer representing the parent office, Sir James Eadie KC, told the argument during the second hearing for the appeal of the Vojvoda.

Prince Harry, Shaheed Fatima KC, previously stated that Ravec did not achieve the risk analysis from the Board of Directors of Risks before making a decision, which is a standard procedure in determining such issues.

On the second day of the Harry appeal over his reduced certainty, the James Eadie KC mother office has shared more insights in the reason why the decision was performed without consulting the risk management committee.

"Risk analysis of RMB is a common approach in common cases," said a higher court lawyer during the proceedings, "Po Daily mail. "But in January 2020. There is nothing about the Appeals (Prince Harry) in January that he deviated from his role in the Royal family and spent most of the time abroad, it was common."

The lawyer also mentioned that it was "hard to imagine" anyone more convenient than Chair of Ravec to sign out so that the security arrangements of the Vojvoda should change in order to adjust "unique and unusual and unusual circumstances".

He continued to reject the request from Harry's lawyer, Shaheed Fatima KC, that the former older royal "singled out" for "inferior treatment".

"He did not stand out - on the contrary, the process adopted had positive advantages for him," said Eadie KC Court.

Advancing for Harry, Fatima KC insisted that Ravec should not deviate from their original guidelines to obtain risk analysis.

She also noted that the Duke was not seen by the new "Bespoke" arrangement as something better, but as a vengeful act seemingly implemented in response to his decision on the cessation of higher royal lives.

She said, "The appellant (Duke Sussex) does not accept that the wrong means it is better - in fact, in its position, it means that it is separated for different, inferior treatment."

Meanwhile, Fatima KC repeated the view that the judge who previously ruled in favor of Ravec acted wrong.

Earlier in the first hearing, he claimed that the judge did so that "wrong and inappropriate" delays the committee based on their decision-making and would not "appreciate the role of RMB", by Daily mail.

At that time, he also noted that "Judge erred in determining that the conditions were referenced to discretion that they simply not use tasks in certain cases."

The latest procedures in Harry's case was held behind closed doors due to the majority due to some performed evidence that are considered "very confidential".

"Some of the evidence in this case, which are placed before the Appellation Court, are agreed between the parties to be very confidential," Judges, Geoffrey Vos, Lord Justice Bean, and Lord Justice Edis, ruled during the first proceedings.

They added: "This evidence relates to safety arrangements and levels of threats and assessments of applicants and other public figures" and "would be from interest to nobody who want to harm the person within security arrangements."