Attorneys representing Prince Harry initiated legal proceedings on Tuesday, challenging his security arrangements in the UK following his departure from active royal duties and relocation to North America.
The legal dispute surrounding the termination of his UK taxpayer-funded security marks the most recent in a series of court actions instigated by Harry, whose father is King Charles III.
Harry has initiated legal proceedings against the UK interior ministry, contesting a decision made in February 2020 by a committee responsible for the security of royal family members.
The individual formally known as the Duke of Sussex was informed that the level of personal protective security he previously had would no longer be maintained.
Shaheed Fatima, for Harry, told the High Court in London the case was about the prince’s right to “safety and security”.
She added in written submissions that the impact of any harm to Harry on the UK’s reputation should have been considered when the committee took the decision to downgrade his protective security when visiting the UK from his new home in California.
Read also: Prince Harry Set To Make History With UK Court Testimony
She said this was especially important given his “status, background and profile within the royal family -– which he was born into”.
In response, lawyer James Eadie, for the Home Office, said Harry was treated in a lawful “bespoke manner” when it came to his security on visits home.
The committee does consider “the risk of a successful attack on that individual” when considering protection.
‘As a result of the fact that he would no longer be a working member of the royal family, and would be living abroad for the majority of the time, his position had materially changed,’ he argued.
‘In those circumstances, protective security would not be provided on the same basis as before.’
Princess Diana, Harry’s mother, lost the title “Her Royal Highness” following her divorce from Charles and tragically died in a high-speed car crash in Paris in 1997 while attempting to evade paparazzi photographers.
Harry’s attempt in May for a legal review of a government decision denying him permission to self-fund specialized UK police protection did not succeed.
Lawyers representing the interior ministry argued that it was unsuitable for wealthy individuals to “buy”.
The conclusion was reached that it was not in the public interest for taxpayers to finance protective security.
London’s Metropolitan Police also opposed Harry’s offer on the grounds that it would be wrong to ‘place officers in harm’s way upon payment of a fee by a private individual’.