He contends he experienced unfair treatment and his security was downgraded without proper analysis or the opportunity for him to provide input when he ceased being a senior royal.

Harry's legal representation insists that the security decision made by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) was not in line with its established policy and lacked transparency.

During the case's preliminary sessions, it was announced much of the evidence would be heard privately to protect sensitive information. The judge indicated that while the final verdict will be public, a detailed, private version will also be prepared.

Harry claims procedural unfairness, highlighting he was uninformed of the Royal Household's involvement and pointing to alleged tensions with Sir Edward Young, who was part of the Ravec committee.

The Home Office defends its position, with their lawyer arguing that Ravec's process was fair and stating that Harry now has a 'bespoke' security plan which was lawfully decided. They suggest his changed status as a non-senior royal living abroad warranted the altered security provisions.

This case is one of several legal actions Prince Harry is pursuing, including lawsuits against media outlets for alleged illegal newsgathering practices. Legal expert Joshua Rozenberg has remarked on the rarity of a royal family member taking legal action against the government.