Prince Harry faces £500,000 legal bill after High Court defeat

Prince Harry’s attempt to pay for armed police guards was rejected by a judge earlier today.

But the royal family may have to put their hand in their pockets – with the possibility of being charged the full cost of the High Court case, estimated at £500,000.

The ruling comes amid a Supreme Court case in which he is filing a claim against Mirror Group Newspapers over allegations of unlawful information gathering.

Harry’s taxpayer-funded protections were lifted when he stepped down as a senior royal and moved to North America with wife Meghan Markle in January 2020.

His legal battle with the Home Office for the right to free full police protection when visiting Britain is ongoing.

Harry’s taxpayer-funded protections were lifted when he stepped down as a senior royal and moved to North America with wife Meghan Markle in January 2020. (Pictured: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle with security in Rotorua, New Zealand, in 2018)

But last week he paid for a KC and three other lawyers to plead in court that his alternative offer to pay for such guards should be reconsidered.

Lawyers representing police and the Interior Ministry said armed officers could not be expected to “endanger themselves” and possibly stop a bullet to protect a paying customer.

Allowing Harry to “buy” his own police protection would create a two-tiered system that only the wealthy could exploit, the argument went. High Court Judge Sir Martin Chamberlain denied the Prince permission to seek judicial review of the rejection of his offer of payment.

The judge said the three lawyers representing the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan Police had shown there was nothing illogical about the view that granting such an offer would have set an “unacceptable” precedent.

And he rejected Harry’s claim that he should have been consulted about the refusal to let him pay by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalties and Public Figures, known as RAVEC.

Referring to the Prince as ‘the principal’ and ‘the plaintiff’, Sir Martin said: ‘It is not clear why fairness would require any particular principal to be given an opportunity to make formal comments on that matter. In any event, RAVEC knew that the plaintiff believed he should be allowed to pay for protective security from the Metropolitan Police Service.”

Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, will leave the High Court in London on March 27, 2023

Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex, and Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex leave The Ziegfeld Theater in New York City on May 16, 2023

When he was told he was no longer eligible for protection after he left for America with wife Meghan Markle, his offer to pay for it was rejected. (Pictured: Harry and Meghan in New York in September 2021)

The judge also pointed out that the prince’s lawyers had argued, unsuccessfully, that RAVEC had no right to refuse his money and that the Met’s commissioner should be asked to consider this.

He said Sir Mark Rowley had made it clear that he would reject Harry’s offer to pay for armed guards as well.

Police have pointed out that when they take payment, for example for providing security at football matches, it is usually on private property and may not involve leaving London. There are also strict rules around firearms.

Sir Martin said wealthy individuals paying for police guards were ‘different from the police services provided at sporting or entertainment events, for example, in that they employ highly trained specialist officers, of whom there are a limited number, and who are required to put themselves in danger. to take’.

A full hearing on Harry’s original challenge to RAVEC’s key decision has yet to be held.

And he could also appeal against today’s ruling.