The Duke of Sussex petitioned the High Court for a judicial review of a decision by the Home Office that he would not be entitled to personal police protection in the United Kingdom in 2020, even if he paid for it himself.
Prince Harry was unsuccessful in his attempt to file a second legal challenge against the Home Office regarding his security arrangements in the United Kingdom.
The Duke of Sussex petitioned the High Court for permission to seek a judicial review of the decision that he was not permitted to pay privately for his protective security.
The Home Office, which is responsible for policing, immigration, and security, decided in February 2020 that the prince would no longer receive personal police protection in the United Kingdom, even if he paid for it himself.
The High Court, which agreed last year that he could dispute the original decision to end the protection, ruled that he could not also seek a judicial review regarding whether he could pay for the specialized police officers himself.
At a hearing earlier this month, Harry’s legal team asked a judge to allow the duke to bring a case against the Home Office and the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec), which falls under the department’s purview, for decisions made in December 2021 and February 2022.
In opposition to Harry’s claim, the Home Office stated that Ravec believed it was “inappropriate” for wealthy people to “buy” protective security, which could include armed officers when it had determined that “the public interest does not warrant” such protection being provided publicly.
Lawyers for the Metropolitan Police, an interested party in the case, deemed Ravec’s conclusion that “it is wrong for a policing body to place officers in danger in exchange for a fee from a private individual” to be “reasonable.”
However, the duke’s legal team argued that Ravec’s position – that allowing payment for protective security would be against the public interest and undermine public confidence in the Metropolitan Police – could not be reconciled with regulations that expressly permit charging for certain police services.
The judge, Mr. Justice Chamberlain, stated in his ruling, “In my opinion, the short answer to this question is that Ravec did not state that allowing affluent individuals to pay for police services would be against the public interest.
“It can be assumed that section 25(1) (of the Police Act of 1996), to which it refers, expressly contemplates remuneration for some of these services”.
Its reasoning was limited to the protective security services within its jurisdiction.
These services are qualitatively distinct from the police services provided at, for example, sporting or entertainment events, due to the deployment of a limited number of highly trained specialist officers who are required to place themselves in danger to protect their principals.
“According to Ravec, there are policy reasons why these services should not be made accessible for payment while others are.
I cannot discern any irrational reasoning in that argument.
After attending an awards ceremony in New York, Harry, his wife Meghan Markle, and her mother Doria Ragland were involved in a “nearly catastrophic” vehicle chase with paparazzi, according to a spokesperson for the prince.
However, contradictory accounts of the alleged event have emerged, and there are suggestions that the Sussexes’ account is “exaggerated.”
Backgrid declined the couple’s request for photographs and video of the “chase,” reportedly stating that Harry cannot issue commands “as perhaps Kings can.”
The duke is suing Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) for improper information collecting in a High Court case.
He is also awaiting decisions on whether analogous cases against Daily Mail publisher Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) and Sun publisher News Group Newspapers (NGN) can proceed.
The duke’s libel complaint against ANL over a story about his Home Office case is also expected.
