Prince Harry is in court to challenge the loss of security details in the United Kingdom

London – London (AP) – Prince Harry His lawyer told the Court of Appeal on Tuesday, he was unfairly treated when he was stripped of his British security details.

Harry, who appeared rarely in the court, lost his protection by the government in February 2020 after he stepped down as a work member in the royal family and moved to the United States

supreme court Judge’s ruling last year The decision of the government committee to provide the “detailed” security for Harry on the basis of affecting the need was not illegal, irrational or unjustified.

But lawyer Shahid Fatima argued that a group evaluated the security needs of the Duke of Sussex failed to follow her own operation and conduct a risk management evaluation.

Fatima said: “The appellant does not accept that the joint means better.” “In fact, in its submission, this means that it has been distinguished for a different, unjustified and lower treatment.”

Harry, who included his surnames, was wearing a blue blue suit and a light blue tie sitting behind his lawyer. His sudden appearance was an indication of the importance of the case.

Harry, forty, the younger son of King Charles III, collected the royal family conference by transferring the government and the press to the court, where he has a Mixed record.

But Harry rarely appears before the court, just as a few appeared in the past two years. This included the trial of one of the cases of penetration of his phone against British tablidate when he was the first senior member of the royal family to enter the witness fund in more than a century.

Harry had claimed that he and his family were at risk when visiting his homeland because of the hostility he and his wife Megan, the Duchess of Sussex, were targeted on social media and through hunting unabated by the media.

He lost a relevant court case in which he requested permission to pay the police details in particular when the judge denied this offer after a government lawyer argued that the officers should not be used “as a special personal incendiary for the wealthy.”

As I drop a The case of defamation Against the publisher of the Daily Mail newspaper, he said he tried to hide his efforts to continue receiving government security.

But he won a major victory in the trial in 2023 against the publisher of the Daily Mirror newspaper when the judge found this The phone penetration In the tabloid was “widespread and normal.” He claimed a Victory “huge” In January when the Robert Murdoch newspaper was made in the United Kingdom An unprecedented apology For children for years, he agreed to pay great damage to the settlement A privacy invasion lawsuit.

It has a similar case suspended against the post publisher.