Prince Harry in court again on Wednesday for the second day of his appeal against the UK government’s decision to scale back his police protection during visits to Britain. The case, which has generated legal and public interest, could redefine the balance between royal security and taxpayer accountability.
Prince Harry in Court: What the Case is All About
Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, is fighting to have his police protection reinstated to the level he enjoyed before stepping down from royal duties in 2020. Following his and Meghan Markle’s departure from the royal family, the government concluded that Harry no longer warranted the same publicly funded security while in the UK.
The prince, now 40, says the move places him and his family at risk and prevents him from spending more time in his home country. He launched legal action against the UK Home Office in 2021, arguing that the decision was “procedurally unfair” and exposed him to real dangers.
Closed-Door Hearings for Safety Reasons
Due to the nature of the case, much of the second day of the appeal was held behind closed doors. Lawyers discussed intelligence reports, threat levels, and specific risks to the prince, which were deemed too sensitive for public disclosure.
Legal analysts say the secrecy highlights how seriously the UK still considers threats to Harry, even as he is no longer a working royal. The court was told that details of these threats, if made public, could jeopardize national security.
Legal Team Claims Prince Was Treated Unfairly
On Tuesday, Harry’s lead lawyer, Shaheed Fatima KC, told the court that the prince had been unfairly singled out. She argued that stripping him of full security protection amounted to “unjustified and inferior treatment.”
The legal team pointed out that threats against Harry have persisted, particularly in light of his outspoken criticism of the royal family and British press. They also noted that Harry was not given an adequate opportunity to make his case before the decision was made, calling the process legally flawed.
Government Defends Security Cutback
The Home Office’s lawyer, James Eadie KC, countered that Harry’s status has changed. Since he is no longer performing official royal duties, the decision to limit his protection is consistent with policy.
Eadie said protection decisions are made based on specific risk assessments, not titles. According to the government, the prince may receive security during high-risk events, but full-time taxpayer-funded protection isn’t warranted.
Personal Reasons Behind the Fight
Harry’s legal battle is deeply personal. He has often spoken of being haunted by the death of his mother, Princess Diana, who died in a car crash in 1997 while being chased by paparazzi. The trauma of that event is a core motivator in his demand for better protection.
The prince has said that he does not feel safe bringing his family to the UK under current security arrangements. Since moving to California with Meghan and their children, Archie and Lilibet, his trips back home have been short and infrequent.
Outcome of the Hearing and What Comes Next
Wednesday marked the conclusion of the two-day appeal. A written decision is expected in the coming weeks. If successful, Harry could have his security reinstated or at least force a re-evaluation of the process used to remove it.
However, if the court sides with the government again, it would further solidify the precedent that only working royals are entitled to automatic police protection.
Legal experts say the result could also influence how other members of the royal family—or former royals—are treated in the future when it comes to public safety and taxpayer funding.
Public Divided Over Prince Harry in Court
The case has sparked divided opinions. Supporters argue that Harry should be allowed proper security, especially if credible threats exist. Critics, on the other hand, say that having stepped away from royal life, he should not expect to receive state-funded protection.
Public sentiment remains mixed, with some accusing the prince of seeking royal privileges while criticizing the monarchy and others sympathizing with his desire to protect his family.
