In his 52-page ruling Sir Peter argued that lawyers representing the Duke of Sussex had made “an inappropriate, formalist interpretation of the Ravec process” during the High Court case.

He added: “The ‘bespoke’ process devised for the claimant in the decision of February 28 2020 was, and is, legally sound.”

Sir Peter accepted the decision of Sir Richard Mottram, Ravec’s former chairman, and argued that he would have come to the same conclusions back in 2020 even if he had been presented with Harry’s argument then.

The Home Office delegates responsibility for security arrangements of the Royal Family to Ravec, who also handle security for other important overseas guests.

Following the ruling earlier this year a spokesperson for Harry said: “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.”

Security concerns are said to be the reason why Harry refused to stay in a royal residence when he was in the UK for the Invictus Games 10th anniversary service last month.

Instead of accepting King Charles’s offer he reportedly opted for a hotel, as he did when he flew to London for a last minute visit in February this year.

As a result Harry was not able to meet with his father or any other members of the Royal Family while he was over here, as the King was hosting a garden party at the same time as the Invictus service.