Prince Harry Arrives at Court in London for Security Appeal, Marking Most Critical Legal Fight Yet

• Prince Harry was photographed arriving at court in central London on Tuesday, April 8
• The Duke of Sussex is at the Royals Courts of Justice for a two-day hearing appealing a High Court ruling regarding his security arrangements in the U.K.
• The long-running legal battle has contributed to ongoing tensions with his father, King Charles

Prince Harry is back in court in London.

On Tuesday, April 8, the Duke of Sussex, 40, was seen arriving at the Royals Courts of Justice in central London for a two-day hearing as he appeals a High Court ruling regarding his security arrangements in the U.K. — a long-running legal battle that has contributed to ongoing tensions with his father, King Charles.

Harry arrived at the Court of Appeal around an hour before the hearing started and looked relaxed and smiled briefly, giving a small wave to some of those looking on along the side of the court building. 

The hearing is also set to take place on April 9. The Duke of Sussex traveled from his home in Montecito for the hearing. He and his wife, Meghan Markle, moved to the Duchess’ home state of California in 2020 after stepping back from royal duties, and now raise their children, Prince Archie, 5 and Princess Lilibet, 3. in the U.S.

According to a Court of Appeal order issued on April 1 and seen by PEOPLE, most of the appeal will be heard in public, though portions will be held in private to protect “confidential evidence.”

Harry lodged a legal appeal against the Home Office over his security detail in the U.K., arguing that he and his family should have automatic protection whenever they visit. 

The saga began in February 2020, when the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (RAVEC) stripped Harry’s automatic right to U.K. police security shortly after he and Meghan stepped back from royal duties. In a legal challenge last year, High Court judge Peter Lane upheld the government and RAVEC’s decision to downgrade the Duke of Sussex’s security. 

“The court has found that there has not been any unlawfulness in reaching the decision of 28 February 2020,” Lane ruled in documents seen by PEOPLE when the news broke in February 2024. “The decision was not irrational. The decision was not marred by procedural unfairness.”

“The court has also found that there has been no unlawfulness on the part of RAVEC in respect of its arrangements for certain of the claimant’s visits to Great Britain,” it continued. 

In December 2023, Prince Harry’s lawyers argued against the February 2020 decision to strip the prince’s automatic right to U.K. police security. Although the Duke of Sussex had offered to cover the costs of security, the bid was rejected. His legal team has previously said that he “does not feel safe” bringing his children to the U.K. following the loss of taxpayer-funded police protection. 

King Charles’ younger son has been battling this issue in court for five years and is now appealing an initial decision lost in April 2024. According to sources close to Harry, the loss of taxpayer-funded security has remained a major point of contention — one that has deepened tensions between him and his father, 76.

Constitutionally, the sovereign has no governmental power in the U.K. or influence on RAVEC, but the Duke of Sussex believes that his father could intervene to ensure such protection is extended. (Buckingham Palace will not comment on security provisions, but a palace source previously told PEOPLE the notion that Harry’s security is in Charles’s hands is “wholly incorrect.”)

Can’t get enough of PEOPLE’s Royals coverage? Sign up for our free Royals newsletter to get the latest updates on Kate Middleton, Meghan Markle and more!  

“Harry is frightened and feels the only person who can do anything about it is his father,” a royal insider previously told PEOPLE. 

Another source close to the situation added, “Harry is determined to protect his own family at all costs.”

Harry previously appeared in court in London during his case against Mirror Group Newspapers over alleged unlawful information gathering.