London, UK - Britain's Prince Harry will be able to appeal against the dismissal of his High Court challenge over a decision to change the level of his personal security when he visits the UK.

Harry took legal action against the Home Office over the February 2020 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.

In a judgment in February, retired High Court judge Peter Lane rejected Harry's case and concluded RAVEC's approach was not irrational nor procedurally unfair.

However, Harry, also known as the Duke of Sussex, has been given the green light to challenge Lane's dismissal at the Court of Appeal, according to an order by Lord Justice Bean dated May 23.

In his 52-page partially redacted ruling dismissing his claim, Lane said Harry'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."

The judge said he accepted comments from Richard Mottram, the former chairman of RAVEC, who said that, even if he had received a document setting out all of Harry's legal arguments in February 2020, "I would have reached the same decision for materially the same reasons."

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.

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."