The Duke of Sussex previously lost his legal fight against changing his government-funded UK security.

He claimed he had been treated “less favourably” than other royals.

Harry, 39, vowed to appeal after losing his case against the Home Office.

Now it has been ruled he can challenge Sir Peter’s dismissal at the Court of Appeal, according to an order by Lord Justice Bean dated May 23.

Sir Peter had previously ruled the duke’s lawyers had taken “an inappropriate, formalist interpretation of the Ravec process”.

He added: “The ‘bespoke’ process devised for the claimant in the decision of February 28 2020 was, and is, legally sound.”

After the ruling earlier this year, a legal spokesman for Harry said he intended to appeal, adding: “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 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.”

It comes after the Sussexes were stripped of their round-the-clock protection when they stepped back from royal duties in 2020.

Harry moaned he was unable to return with Meghan, Archie and Lilibet, “because it is too dangerous”.

He was allowed security when he stayed at royal residences or attended royal events but had to fend for himself if he wanted to see friends.

The High Court heard in May last year how Harry had brought a case against the Home Office and the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec).

He had won the bid to take the Government to court the year prior.

Harry’s lawyers argued he was “singled out” and treated “less favourably” in the decision.

However, Home Office lawyers argued he was no longer part of a group of people whose “security position” was under regular review by Ravec.

They said rather he was “brought back within the cohort in the appropriate circumstances”

The findings of the hearing read: “The court has found that there has not been any unlawfulness in reaching the decision of 28 February 2020.

“Any departure from policy was justified. The decision was not irrational.

“The decision was not marred by procedural unfairness. Even if such procedural unfairness occurred, the court would in any event be prevented from granting the claimant relief.

“This is because, leaving aside any such unlawfulness, it is highly likely that the outcome for the claimant would not have been substantially different.”

It added: “The court has also found that there has been no unlawfulness on the part of RAVEC in respect of its arrangements for certain of the claimant’s visits to Great Britain, following the decision of 28 February 2020.”

Follow us to see more useful information, as well as to give us more motivation to update more useful information for you.

Source: Tampa Bay Times