Prince Harry loses legal fight to pay for police protection in UK | Prince Harry
Prince Harry has lost his bid to take legal action against the Home Office over its refusal to allow him to pay for police protection while in the UK.
The Duke of Sussex was seeking permission to present what would have been a second challenge related to his security arrangements.
Harry’s lawyers have argued that the ruling by the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec), which deals with the protection of royalty and public figures, that people should not be allowed to pay privately for their protective security was illegal.
Ravec had argued that public trust would be undermined if it was believed that a wealthy individual could pay to receive protective security measures that they would not receive if they were less wealthy. He said allowing private funding would also reduce the availability of a limited specialist resource where it was deemed to be in the public interest.
In a written judgment on Tuesday, Judge Chamberlain denied Harry permission to seek judicial review of the decision. One of the grounds given by the Duke’s lawyers was that it contradicted section 25(1) of the Police Act 1996, which allows the ‘Chief Constable’ to provide special policing ‘under reservation of payment”.
But Chamberlain wrote: ‘Ravec did not say it would be against the public interest to allow wealthy people to pay for police services. He can be taken to have understood that Article 25(1), to which he refers, expressly contemplates payment for some of these services. His reasoning was narrowly circumscribed to the protective security services that fall within his jurisdiction.
“These services are different in nature from policing services provided at (for example) sporting or entertainment events, as they involve the deployment of highly trained specialist officers, of whom there are a limited number, and who are required to stand in danger. way to protect their constituents. Ravec’s reasoning was that there are political reasons why these services should not be made available for payment, even though others are. I can’t detect anything arguably irrational in this reasoning.
The claim is linked to another over Harry’s safety, challenging Ravec’s refusal to provide him with safety after his royal role changed. That case is currently pending after he was granted leave to prosecute last year.
The Duke also has three pending civil actions relating to alleged phone hacking against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN), Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) and News Group Newspapers (NGN). Additionally, he is awaiting a decision in a libel claim against the Mail on Sunday over his reporting on the disagreement over his security arrangements.