Prince Harry believes he was treated unjustly when he lost his British security detail after stepping down from his royal duties and relocating to the United States, his attorney argued in front of appeals court judges. His fight to regain government-funded protection signifies the importance he places on the matter.
In February 2020, Harry was stripped of his police bodyguards following his decision to leave his role as a working royal. Last year, a High Court judge ruled that the decision by a government panel to provide him with “bespoke” security as needed, was not unlawful. However, attorney Shaheed Fatima contended that the group responsible for assessing Harry’s security needs did not follow due process or conduct a proper risk management assessment.
Fatima argued that the term “bespoke” did not equate to better security and suggested it was a form of unjust treatment. Meanwhile, a lawyer representing the government, James Eadie, maintained that Harry’s arguments were based on an inappropriate interpretation of the government’s security review. Eadie characterized the appeal as failing to consider the overall picture, focusing instead on isolated pieces of evidence and judgment errors.
The ongoing appeal, which is being heard by three Court of Appeal justices, was expected to conclude on Wednesday, with a written decision anticipated thereafter. While parts of the hearing were public, the second day was primarily conducted behind closed doors to protect sensitive confidential details related to security.
Harry’s appearance in court, one of his rare public legal battles, underscores the significance of this case to him. He arrived at the courthouse that morning, flanked by a minimal security team and court officers and entered through a private door, waving to the cameras.
As the younger son of King Charles III, Harry has diverged from royal family traditions by taking legal actions against the government and tabloid media, experiencing varied outcomes. Although he seldom appears in court, his presence was noted during a high-profile phone hacking case against British tabloids, marking the first instance in over 130 years of a senior royal taking the witness stand.
Harry and his wife decided to step back from royal duties in 2020, citing inadequate protection from the royal institution. Consequently, a Home Office panel ruled that there was no justification for publicly funded security for the couple while in the UK. Harry maintains that he and his family face risks linked to anti-Sussex sentiment on social media and relentless media harassment in the UK.
Court documents revealed that Harry faced security threats since losing his government-sponsored protection, including a document from al-Qaida suggesting his assassination would be celebrated by Muslims, and a perilous encounter with paparazzi in New York. Harry unsuccessfully sought permission to personally fund police protection while in the UK, with a court ruling against it based on the principle that police should not serve as private bodyguards for the affluent.
Furthermore, he withdrew a libel suit against the Daily Mail’s publisher over an alleged attempt to obscure his efforts to retain government-funded security. Harry enjoyed a notable victory when a judge ruled that phone hacking by the Daily Mirror’s publisher was extensive, and he previously secured a significant resolution from Rupert Murdoch’s UK tabloids, who settled by apologizing and agreeing to pay damages for privacy breaches. Harry is also awaiting the outcome of a similar privacy breach case against the Mail’s publisher.