Prince Harry accuses UK of treating him unfairly with ‘lesser’ security

British taxpayers are in the sights of non-working royal Prince Harry, who wants royal-level security protection every time he is back in Britain.

Prince Harry leaves the Royal Courts of Justice in March. Picture: Justin Tallis / AFP

Prince Harry was in court again, this week, but this time the British press weren’t in his sights, rather the British taxpayers.

Harry has been grumbling about the “unfair” lesser degree of security he has been given when he visits the United Kingdom after stepping down as a working royal to live in California.

The prince didn’t appear at the High Court in central London on Tuesday, but his legal counsel Shaheed Fatima KC argued on his behalf that the decision making Home Office committee which determines security for royal ands other VIP’s, should have considered “in particular, the impact on the UK’s reputation of a successful attack on C (the claimant, Harry).”

She added that issues that should have been borne in mind were “his status, background and profile within the royal family – which he was born into and which he will have for the rest of his life – and his ongoing charity work and service to the public.”

The Home Office said it provides security for Harry, 39, in line with other high profile dignitaries, which is assessed on a case-by-case basis.

The court heard the security arrangements for Harry were “bespoke arrangements, specifically tailored to him’’.

Not good enough, says Harry, who has specifically complained that he hasn’t got the star security treatment that at least one other royal has enjoyed.

Harry’s current grievance is that he has had been treated “less favourably”.

Unfortunately the name of this other royal has been redacted, and much of the three day court hearing is being held in private because of the sensitivities of the evidence.

But the court documents offer royal watchers a guessing game of sorts to fill in the blanks.

The court documents says Harry had been: “treated unfairly, as is clear when comparing his treatment to that of _.

“While (the Home Office) has attempted to explain the inconsistent approach between C (the complainant Harry) and _, no attempt has been made to explain why a risk management board analysis was done for _ and not for C.”

The documents continued: “_ have never _ but they have protective security”.

Back in May Harry lost an associated court battle to be able to pay for armed police protection while in the United Kingdom. He has argued that the special protection unit in the UK has access to intelligence briefings that his privately paid security doesn’t.

Despite his preoccupation with security, Harry had no qualms about revealing the number of kills he achieved during his time in the British military during tours of Afghanistan, describing the Taliban as “chess pieces taken off the board” in his book “Spare”, which was heavily criticised by officers.

Retired-commanding officer Colonel Collins told Forces News: “That’s not how you behave in the Army; it’s not how we think.

“He has badly let the side down. We don’t do notches on the rifle butt. We never did.”

While Harry was engaging in the courtroom battle, there has been no word from him, nor his wife Meghan Markle clarifying the claims made in a book by their favoured author that Meghan had written a letter naming two royals accused of unconscious bias regarding the skin colour of baby Archie.

On Tuesday the Home office lawyer Sir James Eadie said Harry is still provided with protection when he is in the UK reflecting his particular combination of circumstances.

He added: “It is judged to be right in principle that the allocation of finite public resources which results from protective security provided by the state be allocated to individuals who are acting in the interests of the state through their public role.”

The case, being heard by Mr Justice Lane, is expected to be finished this week, with a Judgement handed down in due course.

Harry has multiple other court cases still ongoing against various British newspaper titles.