As Legal Battle Over Police Protection Continues, Harry’s Lawyer Highlights Personal Threats and Calls Home Office’s ‘Bespoke’ Security Approach Inadequate
LONDON, April 10 (Reuters): Prince Harry returned to the Royal Courts of Justice in London on Wednesday as his legal team argued that his life is at risk due to reduced security arrangements following his departure from royal duties.
The Duke of Sussex is appealing a 2020 decision by the UK Home Office, which ruled that Harry would no longer automatically receive state-funded police protection when visiting Britain.
“One must not forget the human dimension to this case: there is a person sitting behind me whose safety, whose security, and whose life is at stake,” said Shaheed Fatima, Harry’s lawyer, during the final day of the two-day hearing.
Fatima also referenced a 2023 incident involving a high-speed car chase with paparazzi in New York, as well as a recent al-Qaeda threat against Harry’s life, which she cited as evidence that the prince remains a high-risk target.
Prince Harry, who stepped back from royal duties in 2020 and now resides in California with his wife Meghan Markle and their two children, is challenging what he views as inadequate protection under a “bespoke” security arrangement offered by the UK government.
Although a previous High Court decision ruled against his claim, Harry was granted permission to appeal, and his legal team is now fighting to have that ruling overturned.
During Wednesday’s hearing, Harry was visibly engaged, frequently conferring with his lawyers and shaking his head as Home Office counsel James Eadie defended the current arrangement. Eadie maintained that the “bespoke” approach had “positive advantages from a security assessment point of view.”
However, Fatima strongly disagreed. “He knows and has experienced a process that is manifestly inferior in every respect,” she said. “His presence here and throughout this appeal is a potent illustration of how much this case means to him and his family.”
Part of the hearing was conducted behind closed doors due to the sensitive nature of the security details involved. A decision on the appeal is expected in the coming weeks.