Prince Harry returned to London’s Royal Courts of Justice on Tuesday to appeal the UK government’s 2020 decision to downgrade his security detail after stepping down as a senior working royal.
Describing the move as “unjustified” and dangerous, the Duke of Sussex argued he had been “singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment.”
Appearing in person during the hearing, a rarity in his many legal disputes, Harry listened intently as his lawyer, Shaheed Fatima, outlined threats against his life and what she called a flawed security decision by the British home office and the committee responsible for protecting royals and public figures.
According to court documents cited by news agency AFP, his legal team said, “Al-Qaeda recently called for (Harry) to be murdered,” and referred to the 2023 incident in which Harry and Meghan were “involved in a dangerous car pursuit with paparazzi in New York City.”
Fatima argued that the RAVEC committee failed to properly assess the risks and deviated from its own procedures. “The appellant does not accept that ‘bespoke’ means better. In fact, it means he has been singled out for unjustified and inferior treatment,” she told the judges, as quoted by AP.
Prince Harry lost his automatic publicly funded police protection after he and Meghan Markle moved to the US in 2020, following their departure from frontline royal duties. The British government has insisted that his security arrangements will be handled on a “case-by-case basis,” considering his changed status.
A High Court ruling in 2023 found the government had acted lawfully, but the Court of Appeal later agreed to hear Harry’s challenge.
In court, government lawyer James Eadie defended the decision, stating Harry’s arguments were based on “an inappropriate, formalist interpretation” of the review process and amounted to a failure to view the “totality of the picture,” as per news agency AP.
The prince has claimed that the reduction in security has made it unsafe for him to return to the UK regularly. In written submissions, his team said he and Meghan “felt forced to step back” from royal duties because “they considered they were not being protected by the institution.”
Harry has faced backlash in the past, including for his 2023 memoir Spare, where he claimed to have killed 25 people while serving in Afghanistan, a statement that drew sharp criticism from the Taliban.
His appearance in court also comes during a turbulent period in his personal and professional life.
As per news agency Reuters, he is currently entangled in a boardroom row with Sophie Chandauka, the chair of Sentebale, a charity he co-founded in his late mother’s memory. Chandauka has accused him of bullying and racism, while Harry has condemned her remarks as “blatant lies” and described the fallout as “heartbreaking.”
Some parts of the hearing, presided over by senior appeal judge Geoffrey Vos, are being held in private due to sensitive security concerns. A written judgment is expected at a later date.
Describing the move as “unjustified” and dangerous, the Duke of Sussex argued he had been “singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment.”
Appearing in person during the hearing, a rarity in his many legal disputes, Harry listened intently as his lawyer, Shaheed Fatima, outlined threats against his life and what she called a flawed security decision by the British home office and the committee responsible for protecting royals and public figures.
According to court documents cited by news agency AFP, his legal team said, “Al-Qaeda recently called for (Harry) to be murdered,” and referred to the 2023 incident in which Harry and Meghan were “involved in a dangerous car pursuit with paparazzi in New York City.”
Fatima argued that the RAVEC committee failed to properly assess the risks and deviated from its own procedures. “The appellant does not accept that ‘bespoke’ means better. In fact, it means he has been singled out for unjustified and inferior treatment,” she told the judges, as quoted by AP.
Prince Harry lost his automatic publicly funded police protection after he and Meghan Markle moved to the US in 2020, following their departure from frontline royal duties. The British government has insisted that his security arrangements will be handled on a “case-by-case basis,” considering his changed status.
A High Court ruling in 2023 found the government had acted lawfully, but the Court of Appeal later agreed to hear Harry’s challenge.
In court, government lawyer James Eadie defended the decision, stating Harry’s arguments were based on “an inappropriate, formalist interpretation” of the review process and amounted to a failure to view the “totality of the picture,” as per news agency AP.
The prince has claimed that the reduction in security has made it unsafe for him to return to the UK regularly. In written submissions, his team said he and Meghan “felt forced to step back” from royal duties because “they considered they were not being protected by the institution.”
Harry has faced backlash in the past, including for his 2023 memoir Spare, where he claimed to have killed 25 people while serving in Afghanistan, a statement that drew sharp criticism from the Taliban.
His appearance in court also comes during a turbulent period in his personal and professional life.
As per news agency Reuters, he is currently entangled in a boardroom row with Sophie Chandauka, the chair of Sentebale, a charity he co-founded in his late mother’s memory. Chandauka has accused him of bullying and racism, while Harry has condemned her remarks as “blatant lies” and described the fallout as “heartbreaking.”
Some parts of the hearing, presided over by senior appeal judge Geoffrey Vos, are being held in private due to sensitive security concerns. A written judgment is expected at a later date.
You may also like
Report on authenticity of audio clips on Biren Singh's role in Manipur violence ready: Centre to SC
'Cannot have situation where you direct President': VP Dhankhar questions SC ruling giving deadline to decide on Bills
Met Office Easter weather warning as Brits told 'prepare emergency kit'
UK high street giant with 4,500 stores to close 50 branches next year
Karnataka govt hints at moving Supreme Court on Muslim quota bill
