Prince Harry is making his latest legal challenge after the High Court upheld the decision that he should not be provided with the same level of police protection given to working members of the Royal Family.

His barrister Shaheed Fatima KC told the court Prince Harry had been subject to a "different and so-called bespoke process" in that original decision.

But the Home Office, opposing the appeal, argued that the judge "was right to find that it [downgrading the prince's security] was lawful".

The duke's security in the UK is currently decided on a case-by-case basis, the same way as the country's other high-profile visitors.

Prince Harry, who sat on Tuesday with a notepad and pen in the back row of the court, did not give evidence in the first part of the hearing - scheduled to last two days.

His case is challenging the way the Royal and VIP Executive Committee, known as Ravec, took the decision on his security arrangements after he stepped down from being a working royal in 2020.

He has previously said that the safety of his family, with whom he moved to California in 2020, was at the heart of the case.

"The UK is central to the heritage of my children," he told the High Court in December 2023, adding that he wanted them to feel at home here.

Because the Home Office has legal responsibility for Ravec's decisions, it is opposing the appeal on its behalf.

Ms Fatima told the court on Tuesday that Ravec had not followed its own standard procedures, because it chose to downgrade his security without having expert analysis of the risks he faced.

She also said the prince's case was not that he should "automatically be entitled to the same protection as he was previously given".

Rather, Ms Fatima said, his legal submissions argued that he should have been told how the decisions about his security were being made.

Sir James Eadie KC, representing the Home Office, said the move to consider Prince Harry's security in the UK on a case-by-case basis had been rightly taken. (BBC/Reuters)