Prince Harry has lost a legal challenge over his bid to be allowed to make private payments for police protection. His attorneys sought a judicial review of the rejection of his offer to pay for protection in the UK. Which occurred after the prince’s security arrangements altered when he ceased to be a “working royal.”
However, a judge has ordered that such a hearing would not take place. Lawyers for the Home Office were opposed to allowing wealthy people to “buy” security from the police.
This decision came after a one-day court hearing in London last week. Since then, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been involved in a “near catastrophic car chase” with paparazzi in New York, according to their spokeswoman.
However, attorneys for Prince Harry contested the decision to refuse his private funding for police security. That is for himself and his family while visiting the UK in the High Court last week. When Prince Harry stepped down as a “working royal” in 2020. He lost access to his former level of security.
However, Prince Harry questioned how the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures – known as Ravec – made this decision. Which controls security for high-profile figures such as senior royals.
Payment of a fee by a private individual” would be unreasonable: Metropolitan Police
“Ravec has exceeded its authority, its power because it doesn’t have the authority to make this decision in the first place,” Prince Harry’s lawyers told the court.
They said that statute allowed for payment for “special police services.” And that “payment for policing is not inconsistent with the public interest or public confidence in the Metropolitan Police Service.”
However, Home Office lawyers stated that the type of protection under consideration. Which could include “specialist officers as bodyguards,” was not the same as funding for more policing at football matches.
A Metropolitan Police barrister stated that exposing officers to danger because of “payment of a fee by a private individual” would be unreasonable.
The Home Office legal staff and the Ravec committee unanimously rejected the offer of private payment. It is against policy to resist the idea that a “wealthy person should be permitted to ‘buy’ protective security.”
The Home Office stated that there was no necessity for the Ravec committee to allow Prince Harry to make comments to them. The decision was unlikely to be modified.
“Given the nature of the arguments now advanced by the claimant. The court can be confident that such representations would have been highly likely to have made no substantial difference in any event.” The Home Office’s lawyers told the judge.