Prince Harry's attorney argued against the 2020 decision to strip Harry of taxpayer-funded police security when he visits Britain

The Home Office said RAVEC had considered the "likely significant public upset" that would stem from something happening to Prince Harry and was aware of the "tragic death" of his mother, Princess Diana, who died in a car accident in 1997 after her vehicle was pursued by paparazzi.

Prince Harry's been "unjustifiably treated less favourably than others" over his security arrangements when he's in the UK, the High Court has heard.

Prince Harry's lawyers are to demand his taxpayer-funded protection is restored as they claim it was unfair to remove police help.

LONDON (Reuters) - Prince Harry has been subjected to "unlawful and unfair treatment" by the British government over the decision to take away his police protection when he is in Britain, his lawyer told London's High Court on Tuesday.

The Duke of Sussex has claimed he was singled out and treated “less favourably” than others when he was denied the right to automatic police protection in the UK. Prince Harry said the Home Office committee that withdrew his tax-payer funded security had subjected him to “unlawful and unfair treatment”.

Lawyers for Prince Harry on Tuesday began a legal challenge over his security arrangements in the UK, after he quit frontline royal duties and moved to North America. The case about his loss of UK taxpayer-funded protection is the latest in a string of court proceedings initiated by Harry,

The Duke of Sussex is in court tomorrow for a three-day legal battle with the Home Office over security arrangements for his family. The 39-year-old California-based royal is set to challenge the February 2020 decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (RAVEC),