London (AP) — In a dramatic courtroom showdown, Prince Harry argued he was unjustly deprived of his British security detail, a point raised by his attorney during a recent appeals court hearing in London.

Harry's presence at the court not only emphasized the personal importance of the case but also highlighted his ongoing battle for security following his exit from royal duties.

Background on Security Changes

After stepping back from his royal role and relocating to the United States in February 2020, Harry lost his government-funded protection. Last year, a High Court ruled that the government's decision to offer him 'bespoke' security on an as-needed basis was deemed lawful.

However, attorney Shaheed Fatima strongly contested this ruling, claiming that Harry had been unfairly singled out for substandard treatment. She argued that the security assessment process was not properly followed and lacked the necessary risk management evaluations.

Arguments from Both Sides

'The appellant does not accept that bespoke means better,' Fatima stated. 'Instead, it signifies that he has been unfairly treated compared to others.'

In response, government lawyer James Eadie contended that Harry's legal arguments were based on a misguided interpretation of the security review process. He implied that the appeal lacked clarity, suggesting that it was a selective reading of evidence cherry-picked to misrepresent the broader context.

Courtroom Proceedings

With the hearing set to conclude Wednesday, a written decision is anticipated shortly. While the courtroom proceedings were streamed live, sensitive elements involving security were discussed privately.

Harry made his entrance accompanied by a small security entourage plus court officers, waving to cameras before entering through a private door. The 40-year-old Duke of Sussex has been known to defy royal conventions by taking legal action against both the government and tabloid press, establishing a mixed track record in the courts.

Harry's Legal History

Though his appearances in court have been sparse over the last two years, his notable appearances include a historic testimony in a phone hacking trial, where he became the first senior royal in over a century to take the witness stand.

The stakes are particularly high for Harry, who claims he and his family face substantial danger during visits to the UK, stemming from hostility directed at him and his wife, Meghan Markle, compounded by intrusive media coverage.

Specific Threats

His lawyer highlighted at least two serious security threats faced by the couple, including an alarming Al-Qaida document that included a call for Harry's assassination, as well as a dangerous paparazzi chase in New York.

Previous Legal Attempts

Previously, Harry sought to fund his own security detail but lost a related court case when a judge ruled that public police officers shouldn’t act as 'private bodyguards for the wealthy.' He also abandoned a libel case against the Daily Mail regarding an article alleging he was trying to conceal his attempts to retain government security.

Wins Against the Press

On a more positive note, Harry achieved a significant win against the Daily Mirror, where a judge confirmed widespread phone hacking at the tabloid. Earlier this year, he scored a monumental settlement from Rupert Murdoch’s UK tabloids, who issued an unprecedented apology for years of privacy invasions, agreeing to substantial damages.

Conclusion

As the royal struggles continue to unfold in the public eye, Harry's battle for security raises questions about the balance between royal protection and personal privacy in the modern era. Will this court case pave the way for a reevaluation of safety protocols for the royal family? Only time will tell.