The Duke of Sussex took legal action against the Home Office after it decided in 2020 that he should receive a different degree of taxpayer-funded protection when in the UK. However, his case was rejected by High Court judge Sir Peter Lane in February this year.

Harry, however, can challenge Sir Peter’s dismissal at the Court of Appeal now.

‘It would indicate he would want to spend more time in the United Kingdom’

Royal commentator Gareth Russell has said that Harry’s appeal indicates that he wishes to return to the UK. “The appeal is interesting, given just how expensive it will be for Prince Harry,” he said.

“But it does seem to be something that matters to him very much, whether it is about proving himself correct and vindicated against people who he perceives as opponents, or a decision that he felt was unjustified when he stepped away from being a senior working royal, isn’t exactly clear,” Russell continued.

“Certainly, it would indicate he would want to spend more time in the United Kingdom, but that would be contingent on securities,” he added. “I do think the resurrection of these legal proceedings indicates that he does want to spend more time in the United Kingdom than he currently does. It’s a massively expensive process for him.”

The Royal Family’s members are given protective security arrangements by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec). A legal spokesman for Harry said after the ruling earlier this year, “The duke is not asking for preferential treatment, but for a fair and lawful application of Ravec’s own rules, ensuring that he receives the same consideration as others in accordance with Ravec’s own written policy.”

“In February 2020, Ravec failed to apply its written policy to the Duke of Sussex and excluded him from a particular risk analysis,” the spokesperson added. “The duke’s case is that the so-called ‘bespoke process’ that applies to him is no substitute for that risk analysis. The Duke of Sussex hopes he will obtain justice from the Court of Appeal, and makes no further comment while the case is ongoing.”