Prince Harry Security Loss Was Unfair, Lawyer Says/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ Prince Harry’s legal team argued Tuesday that he was treated unfairly when stripped of taxpayer-funded security after leaving royal duties. His lawyer told the appeals court that the UK government failed to follow proper procedures. The case comes as Harry cites multiple threats and continued media harassment.
Prince Harry Security Dispute: Quick Looks
- Harry challenges decision to end his UK police protection
- Lawyer argues security decision was inconsistent and unfair
- High Court previously ruled the decision lawful
- Appeal focuses on lack of formal risk assessment
- UK government defends process as legally sound
- Some court sessions held behind closed doors for security
- Harry made rare court appearance, signaling personal importance
- He’s faced threats, including from al-Qaida and paparazzi chases
- Past attempts to fund private police protection were denied
- Ongoing legal battles with UK tabloids continue
Prince Harry Security Loss Was Unfair, Lawyer Says
Deep Look
Prince Harry’s Legal Fight Over Security Heads to Appeals Court
Prince Harry made a rare in-person appearance Tuesday at a London court as his legal team argued he was unfairly stripped of his publicly funded security after stepping back from royal duties and relocating to the U.S. in 2020.
His lawyer, Shaheed Fatima, told a panel of appeals court judges that the government review body responsible for the decision—known as RAVEC—failed to follow its own guidelines and bypassed a proper risk assessment. She criticized the current ad hoc “bespoke” approach to Harry’s security as inconsistent and discriminatory.
“In fact, in his submission, it means that he has been singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment,” Fatima told the court.
The High Court ruled last year that the RAVEC panel’s decision to provide protection only in specific cases was not unlawful. Now, Harry’s legal team is challenging that ruling, saying the process lacked transparency and fairness.
Government Pushes Back
James Eadie, representing the UK government, defended the original court decision, saying Harry’s arguments misinterpreted how the security review was conducted.
“This appeal involves a continued failure to see the wood for the trees,” Eadie said, calling the prince’s interpretation overly narrow and out of context.
Some of the proceedings were closed to the public due to the sensitive nature of national security discussions. A written ruling by the appeals court is expected in the coming weeks.
Personal Stakes and Public Attention
Prince Harry’s court appearance underlines the importance he places on the case. He arrived with his personal security team, waved to cameras, and entered through a private entrance.
The Duke of Sussex, 40, has become a rare royal in modern times to challenge both the British government and press in court. While he’s had mixed legal results, his actions have spotlighted the intersection of security, privacy, and public accountability for high-profile figures.
Harry claims he faces elevated security risks during UK visits due to his strained relationship with the royal institution and the media’s portrayal of him and Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex.
Court documents cited threats including an al-Qaida message calling for his assassination and a dangerous paparazzi pursuit in New York City.
Denied Private Protection
Harry previously sought permission to personally fund UK police protection when visiting, but that case was denied. The court ruled that public police services were not available for private hire, even to high-profile individuals.
“He can’t just dip into public resources,” a government lawyer argued at the time, “to secure private peace of mind.”
Legal Battles With Media Continue
Beyond his fight for security, Harry remains engaged in a series of legal actions against UK tabloid publishers. He recently dropped a libel suit against the Daily Mail’s publisher, but scored a major win last year against the Daily Mirror for long-term phone hacking.
He also secured a public apology and financial settlement from Rupert Murdoch’s News Group Newspapers for intrusions into his personal life—calling it a “monumental” victory. A similar privacy case against the Daily Mail’s parent company remains pending.
As the legal wrangling continues, this week’s case could have lasting implications not only for Harry’s personal security but also for how the UK government handles protection decisions for former royals.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.