Prince Harry has filed another lawsuit over the decision not to allow him to pay for police protection when he is in the UK.
The Duke of Sussex began a legal challenge against the Home Office after his taxpayer-funded security was stripped in 2020 when he stepped down as a working royal and moved to California.
He previously said it was unsafe for him to visit the UK and bring his wife Meghan Markle and children Archie and Lilibet without protection provided by the police.
Now, it has emerged that a second lawsuit has now been filed by Harry at the High Court with the Home Office and also the Metropolitan Police as defendants.
It is understood it focuses on the decision from earlier this year that people should not be able to privately pay for police protection.
An official from the Judicial Office told the Mirror: "It is at an early stage, no hearings have been listed yet and no decisions have been made."
The new claim comes just weeks after Harry won the latest stage of his court fight in his initial claim against the Home Office in the High Court over his security arrangements. The ruling means he will now be able to take the case for a judicial review.
Love the royals? Sign up for the Mirror's daily newsletter to get all the latest news on the Queen, Charles, Kate, Wills, Meghan, Harry and the rest of The Firm. Click here to sign up .
He and his team had argued that his US-based entourage do not have sufficient jurisdiction in Britain to be able to protect him properly.
They further argued his hiring of police officers during the duration of his trips would come at no cost to the taxpayer.
But the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec), which falls under the remit of the Home Office, ruled last June that he could no longer be entitled to the "same degree" of security as he is now a private citizen.
Harry's lawyers said in an appeal in June that the decision had been made with "procedural unfairness" as he had not been able to make "informed representations" before his application was denied.
In the judgment, the High Court judge said the case could proceed, granting permission for part of Harry's claim to have a judicial review.
Mr Justice Swift said it was "arguable" whether the duke "should have had the opportunity to make representations direct to Ravec", including the opportunity to comment.
But he denied permission for other parts of Harry's claim, including his argument that he should have been told who the members of Ravec were.
A written argument from Shaeed Fatima QC had earlier suggested that the decision had been "materially prejudiced" because "among other things, his offer to pay (for security) was not conveyed to Ravec before the decision was made".
However, lawyers for the Home Office say Ravec was entitled to reach the decision it did, which is that Harry's security arrangements will be considered on a "case by case" basis, and argue that permission for a full judicial review should be refused.
The Prince enjoyed round-the-clock protection in the years before he left his working role in the Royal Family in 2020 and moved with his family to the United States.
