Prince Harry made a surprise appearance at the Royal Courts of Justice in London to attend an appeal hearing into his security arrangements – and it seems his unexpected attendance has raised eyebrows at the Palace

Prince Harry’s shock trip to the UK to attend one of his legal battles appears to have raised eyebrows with palace courtiers. The Duke of Sussex arrived in London at the weekend on a previously unannounced visit, and has spent two days attending the Royal Courts of Justice for his appeal related to his security arrangements while in the UK.

Harry is challenging the dismissal of his High Court legal action against the Home Office over the decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) that he should receive a different degree of taxpayer-funded protection when in the country.

Prince Harry at the Royal Courts of Justice yesterday (Image: Humphrey Nemar for the Daily Mirror)

It emerged that Harry has been in London since Sunday and his time in the city overlapped with his estranged father King Charles. However, reports suggested the pair did not meet before the King and Queen Camilla jetted off to Italy for a historic state visit.

This meant that Harry’s high-profile appearance at the Court of Appeal appeared to overshadow the second day of his father’s important trip aimed at strengthening ties between the UK and Italy. And one person close to the King told the Daily Mail’s Richard Kay that Harry had caused a “distraction” to the monarch’s visit.

Meanwhile, another said: “It is an unwritten rule that when the monarch is on an official overseas visit, the rest of the family have a duty to avoid anything that grabs the limelight. Has Harry forgotten everything about royal life?”

Charles and Camilla in Italy yesterday during a visit to Rome’s Colosseum (Image: Ian Vogler / Daily Mirror)

Harry is believed to have last seen his father more than a year ago when he dashed to the UK from the United States when it was announced that the King had been diagnosed with cancer. Harry also visited the UK without meeting his father in May last year, during a trip to celebrate his Invictus Games. He said at the time that he hoped to see his father “soon” after the King’s “full programme” meant a reunion was not then possible.

Harry and Charles’s relationship was strained during the period the duke stepped down as a working royal and moved to the US with wife Meghan and their family.

It has also previously been reported that the issue of Harry’s security has contributed to the already strained relationship between the Duke and his family. According to Harry’s friends, his calls to his father regarding the issue have gone “unanswered”, but sources close to the King have said that it would be “wholly inappropriate” for him to intervene.

Father and son have a strained relationship(Image: AFP via Getty Images)

At yesterday’s hearing, the court was told that Harry has been “singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment” when it comes to his security arrangements in the UK. Shaheed Fatima KC, for the duke, said: “When Ravec made its February 2020 decision about the appellant’s protective security, it did not apply its own terms of reference to that decision-making process.”

Ravec has delegated responsibility from the Home Office over the provision of protective security arrangements for members of the royal family and others, with involvement from the Metropolitan Police, the Cabinet Office and the royal household. Ms Fatima told the court that Ravec did not get an assessment from an “expert specialist body called the risk management board, or the RMB” and came up with a “different and so-called ‘bespoke process’”.

She said: “The appellant does not accept that ‘bespoke’ means ‘better’. In fact, in his submission, it means that he has been singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment. Not only does this bespoke process not involve the RMB, it also involves Ravec considering the reason why the appellant is attending a particular event, even though that is plainly irrelevant to the question of security.”

Ms Fatima added: “The appellant’s case is not that he should automatically be entitled to the same protection as he was previously given when he was a working member of the royal family. “The appellant’s case is that he should be considered under the terms of reference and subject to the same process as any other individual being considered for protective security by Ravec unless there is a cogent reason to the contrary.”

In written submissions, Ms Fatima also said: “On 8 January 2020, (the duke) and his wife felt forced to step back from the role of full-time official working members of the royal family as they considered they were not being protected by the institution, but they wished to continue their duties in support of the late Queen as privately funded members of the royal family.”