Prince Harry fights back over downgraded security in UK after Royal exit: ‘Singled out and treated unfairly’

Prince Harry’s legal team argued in court on Tuesday (April 8) that the UK government treated him unfairly when it downgraded his taxpayer-funded security after he stepped down from his royal duties in 2020.

Appearing in person at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, the Duke of Sussex is challenging a previous High Court ruling that upheld the decision by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) to provide him with “bespoke” security on a case-by-case basis instead of continuous state-funded protection.

'Bespoke' means unequal, not better: Harry’s lawyer

Prince Harry’s barrister, Shaheed Fatima KC, told the Court of Appeal that the so-called bespoke arrangement does not equate to enhanced security.

“The appellant does not accept that bespoke means better,” Fatima said.

“In fact, in his submission, it means that he has been singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment.”

Fatima argued that the government’s security body failed to follow its own established process, including conducting a formal risk management assessment, before making changes to Harry’s protection.

Rare personal appearance signals seriousness

Prince Harry, 40, made a rare appearance for the hearing, highlighting the personal importance of the case. He entered the building with a small private security team and waved briefly to photographers before using a private entrance.

Parts of the hearing were held in private to protect national security concerns, while other segments were livestreamed.

Home Office defends decision, accuses Harry of misreading process

The Home Office, representing Ravec, countered that Harry’s legal team had selectively interpreted the facts.

Government barrister Sir James Eadie KC described the appeal as a mischaracterization of the process.

“It involves a continued failure to see the wood for the trees,” he said.

“Advancing propositions available only by reading small parts of the evidence, and now the judgment, out of context and ignoring the totality of the picture.”

Previous threats, failed legal bids add context

Court documents referenced serious threats to Harry’s safety, including a reported al-Qaida document calling for his assassination and a high-speed paparazzi chase in New York in 2023.

Harry had previously lost a separate legal bid to personally pay for police protection in the UK, with a judge ruling that public officers could not be “private bodyguards for the wealthy.”

Next steps

The three-judge panel is expected to conclude the hearing on Wednesday. A written judgment will be delivered at a later date.