Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, is challenging the decision made by the U.K. government to strip him of his security detail after he gave up his status as a working member of the royal family and relocated to the United States. The prince claims that his safety, as well as the safety of his family, is at risk due to the aggressive press and hostility directed towards them on social media. In a three-day hearing at London's High Court, Prince Harry's lawyer, Shaheed Fatima, argued that the committee responsible for evaluating his security needs, the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (RAVEC), treated him unfairly and failed to follow its own policies. Fatima stated that RAVEC should have considered the potential impact of a successful attack on the prince, given his status, background, and profile within the royal family, as well as the potential impact on the U.K.'s reputation. The judge is expected to deliver a ruling at a later date.

During the hearing, the government's attorney, James Eadie, argued that Prince Harry should not be treated as a regular member of the royal family whose security position remains under regular review. Eadie emphasized that the committee took into consideration the wider impact of Princess Diana's tragic death and the potential public upset that would arise from a successful attack on Prince Harry. He also mentioned the cost factor, stating that security funds are not unlimited. However, he acknowledged that the prince had been granted protection for certain events in the past.

Prince Harry expressed his dissatisfaction with the committee's decision, stating that they did not hear from him personally and did not disclose the composition of the panel, which he later discovered included royal family staff. He specifically mentioned his concerns about Edward Young, the assistant private secretary to the late Queen Elizabeth II, being a part of the committee due to their "significant tensions." The Home Office argued that any tensions between Prince Harry and the royal household staff were irrelevant and that the committee was entitled to its decision since he had relinquished his role as a working member of the family.

Lee Sansum, who served as Princess Diana's bodyguard, supported Prince Harry's plea for personal security, particularly when he and his family are in the U.K. Sansum highlighted the increased risks posed by social media and the presence of keyboard warriors and trolls. He suggested that Prince Harry should take a course to enhance his technical understanding of security or rely on his professional protection team.

This is not the first legal battle Prince Harry has engaged in since stepping back from his royal duties. Earlier this year, he lost a bid to privately pay for police protection while in the U.K. He argued that he did not feel safe bringing his wife, Meghan Markle, and their children to visit without proper security. The prince's spokesperson stated that his U.S. security team lacks jurisdiction abroad and does not have access to U.K. intelligence. The government's lawyer countered this argument by stating that using police officers as private bodyguards for the wealthy is not appropriate.

Prince Harry's animosity towards the press can be traced back to the death of his mother, Princess Diana, who tragically died in a car accident while being pursued by aggressive photographers in Paris. The prince has also cited racist attitudes and intrusive behavior from the British media as reasons for leaving the U.K. He is currently involved in four other lawsuits against prominent British tabloids, accusing them of libel, phone hacking, and using unlawful means to gather information about him.

The outcome of this hearing, along with the pending lawsuits, will have significant implications for Prince Harry's security arrangements and his ongoing legal battles with the British media.