Prince Harry was treated unfairly when he was stripped of the details of Britain's security.
Harry's rare appearance in court shows the importance of the case to him, losing his government-funded protection in February 2020
The High Court judge ruled last year that the decision of the government panel to provide the Duke of Sussex with a “customized” security on the basis of need is not illegal, irrational or unreasonable.
But attorney Shaheed Fatima believes that the group that assesses Harry's security needs has failed to follow its own process and conduct a risk management assessment.
“The appellant does not accept customization means better,” Fatima said. “In fact, in his submission, it means he was selected to accept different, unreasonable and inferior treatment.”
A government lawyer said Harry's argument in the lower court was accurately found to be based on an “inappropriate, formalistic explanation” of government security review.
“The appeal is elaborated in the same way,” said attorney James Eadie. “This involves the continuous inability to see the wood of trees, advancing the proposition by reading only a small part of the evidence, and now judges, deviating from the context, ignoring the whole picture.”
Get the daily national news
Get news, politics, economics and current events titles delivered to your inbox every day.
The hearing of three court judges in the appeals court will end on Wednesday and a written decision is expected to be made later. During the hearing, certain hearings will be held behind closed doors to discuss sensitive safety details.
Harry arrives at the court with a small security detail that complements the court officials. He waved to the camera and disappeared into the private entrance.
Harry, 40, is the youngest son of King Charles III, brought the government and tabloid press to court, where he won the royal convention, where his record was mixed.
But Harry rarely appears in court hearings, and has only appeared a few times in the past two years. These include the trial of a phone hacking case in the British tabloid, when he was the first senior member of the royal family to enter the witness box, which has been in the witness box for more than a century.
Harry claimed that he and his family were threatened while visiting their homeland due to hostility towards him and his wife, the Duchess of Sussex, on social media and in the news media.
Harry faces at least two serious security threats after being denied protection from government sponsorship, his lawyer said in court documents. Al-Qaida published a document saying Harry's assassination would please Muslims, and he and his wife were involved in a dangerous pursuit of New York paparazzi.
He lost a related court case in the UK, where he sought permission to pay police details privately in the UK, but the judge denied the proposal after government lawyers argued that officials should not be used as “a private bodyguard for the rich.”
Harry also gave up the defamation case against the publisher of the Daily Mail, which said he tried to cover up his efforts to continue to receive government-funded security.
But he won a major victory in the 2023 trial of the Daily Mirror publisher, when the judge found the phone calls in the tabloid were “wide and habitual”. When Rupert Murdoch's British tabloid had violated years of infringement in his life and agreed to pay substantial compensation to resolve his privacy intrusion lawsuit, he achieved a “huge” victory in January.
He has similar cases for publishers of mail.
& Copy 2025 Canadian Press
