In response, the Home Office said Harry’s disagreement with the decision did not constitute a valid appeal. Its legal representatives argued that Ravec was entitled to treat Harry’s case individually and that there had been no unlawful action in the withdrawal of his previous protection. Barrister Sir James Eadie KC said the appeal reflected a “continued failure to see the wood for the trees.”

The dispute over security stems from Harry and Meghan’s decision to step back from official royal duties in 2020. This led to them losing automatic police protection, meaning Harry could only be protected during official royal events or while staying in royal residences, but not during personal visits or travel.

His lawyers claimed this situation was “unlawful and unfair,” adding that a successful attack on Harry would damage the UK’s international reputation.

Harry also attempted to pay for his own police protection, but officials rejected this. Ravec argued such arrangements would undermine the integrity of the police, stating that officers are not “guns for hire.” While some private events can pay for police presence—like football matches or concerts—routine private security does not fall under the same policy.

In his February ruling, Sir Peter Lane found no legal error in Ravec’s decision, saying the bespoke approach for Harry was legally sound and that his legal team had misinterpreted the process.

The appeal hearing comes as Harry faces controversy within his charity Sentebale. He recently stepped down from the organization he co-founded in 2006, following the resignation of fellow patron Prince Seeiso and the rest of the board.

The charity’s chief, Dr. Sophie Chandauka, has since accused Harry of bullying and harassment, leading to an investigation by the Charity Commission.

The appeal is expected to conclude on Wednesday, with the court’s decision to be issued in writing at a later date.