Prince Harry continues his legal battle against the Home Office over his taxpayer-funded security, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
This newspaper has learned that a two-day hearing will take place at the Court of Appeal in April, the latest dramatic twist in Harry’s three-year legal battle with the government.
The Duke of Sussex’s determination to restore round-the-clock security during his time in the UK is seen as part of his desire to return here more often.
The threatened legal action comes after the MoS revealed last week that the Duke has sought advice from trusted advisers in Britain about how to arrange a return from self-imposed exile in the United States.
Earlier this year, a High Court judge ruled that Harry had “completely lost” a “frankly hopeless” attempt to appeal a Home Office decision on his safety in the UK.
Prince Harry (pictured leaving the High Court) is continuing his legal battle against the Home Office over his taxpayer-funded security, The Mail on Sunday can reveal
It comes shortly after the Mail On Sunday revealed the Duke (pictured) was attempting to return to Britain after his self-imposed exile in the United States.
He had launched a judicial inquiry into the decision of the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec) to revoke his right to automatic police protection after he left the active royal family.
However, in May the Court of Appeal gave him permission to challenge the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Now a court official has confirmed that a date has been set for the Duke’s appeal to be heard in London. The hearing will take place on April 8 or 9.
The hearing is also listed on an official, publicly accessible website, showing how the case went to the Court of Appeal listing office on 12 July.
The king and his son are believed to be at a standoff over Harry’s decision to continue his legal battle, which has so far cost British taxpayers £500,000.
Charles is said to find the dispute ‘very troublesome’ as it means ‘His Majesty’s son is suing His Majesty’s Government’ and wants nothing to do with it.
However, Harry believes that his father’s relatives had an influence on the decision to lift the increased security.
Royal biographer Ingrid Seward described Harry as having “tunnel vision” and said the king knows his son is “very stubborn”.
“It’s damaging to his father,” she added. “It’s embarrassing to his father on a more personal level, to think that his own son doesn’t feel safe in the country of his own homeland.
“He doesn’t let things go, Harry. That’s his nature, a bit like his mother. It’s very Diana to chase something and Harry just won’t let it go, despite advice to the contrary. I don’t think that helps any situation at all.”
Harry was given full government-funded protection before stepping back as a working royal four years ago and moving to Montecito, California, with his American wife Meghan Markle.
King Charles III (pictured in 2024) would have found the legal dispute difficult, as it would involve ‘His Majesty’s son suing His Majesty’s government’
Harry was given full protection by the taxpayer before stepping back as a working royal and moving to Montecito, California with Meghan Markle (pictured in San Basilio de Palenque)
He will still be protected if he returns to Britain under certain circumstances, but he must give 28 days’ notice of his plans.
Although the Duke does not want to return to the UK permanently, his decision to continue his legal battle against the Home Office is believed to be a sign that he wants to spend more time here.
Sources have told this newspaper that the Duke has consulted with people ‘from his old life’, in a move that would be the first step in a strategy to ‘rehabilitate’ him and get him to spend more time in the UK, repair his troubled relationship with his father and possibly set in motion a partial return to the royal family.
He is believed not to have seen his father since a brief meeting earlier this year, when it was announced that the monarch had been diagnosed with cancer.
In his recent biography of the Princess of Wales, Robert Jobson said that the king and Harry spent only 30 minutes together at Clarence House. “Clearly not enough to mend the shattered bridges, especially after all the scorn and misrepresentation that came out of Montecito,” he wrote. “After a brief embrace and a short conversation, they parted.”
A source said last night that Harry’s refusal to drop the lawsuit could jeopardize a potential rapprochement with his father, adding: “It’s a big issue to get trust back.”
Mrs Seward added: ‘It won’t help any reconciliation because it will anger the King. But he knows his son and probably realises that Harry won’t let him go.’
Harry is adamant that he cannot bring his wife Meghan and their two children, Prince Archie, five, and Princess Lilibet, three, to the UK at this time.
His lawyers argue he has been treated unfairly by the changes to his police security, as he continues to face significant security risks.
Lord Justice Bean gave Harry the green light to appeal, saying there was a “real prospect of success” in the duke’s argument that Ravec should have followed the written policy.
However, he rejected a request to expedite the appeal, arguing Harry “should not be given priority because of his status”.
According to a source, Harry’s (pictured at the coronation of King Charles III) refusal to drop the lawsuit could jeopardize a possible reconciliation with his father.
Can he get millions from his great-grandmother?
The Duke of Sussex is said to be set to inherit millions of pounds from his late Queen Mother (pictured with Princess Diana in 1992) on his 40th birthday
Prince Harry will receive millions of pounds from the late Queen Mother when he celebrates his 40th birthday next Sunday, sources have said.
It is believed that the Queen Mum put £19 million into a trust fund for her great-grandchildren in 1994.
Reports at the time suggested that William and Harry would claim their shares in two payments: on their 21st and 40th birthdays.
Royal experts suspect that Prince Harry is entitled to a larger share than his brother, as compensation for the fact that he is not a sovereign.
A former palace aide told The Times the trust was “a way for her to pass on some of her wealth in a tax-efficient way”.
Zara and Peter Phillips and the Duke of York’s daughters, Beatrice and Eugenie, are among the other beneficiaries.