Prince Harry loses bid for second legal challenge against the Home Office

Prince Harry has lost his bid for a second legal challenge against the Home Office over his security arrangements in the UK.

The Duke of Sussex, 38, was seeking permission from the High Court to get a judicial review of a decision that he was not allowed to pay privately for his own protective security.

In a ruling on Tuesday, Mr Justice Chamberlain denied Harry permission to take up the second challenge on a number of grounds.

It came after Metropolitan Police chiefs urged in court that their officers are not ‘guns for hire’ to the rich and famous, claiming it would be an ‘unacceptable precedent’ for Harry to allow to pay for the protection of agents – possibly armed ones.

Harry’s legal team had earlier this month asked to file a case over decisions made by the Home Office and the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) – which falls under the department’s remit – in December 2021 and February 2022 .

The estranged duke, when in Britain, had wanted to keep the armed unit of the Royal and Specialist Protection Command (RASP) that protected him when he was a working royal, before the bitter falling out with his family.

Metropolitan police chiefs previously insisted in court that their officers are not ‘guns for hire’ to the rich and famous, claiming it would set an ‘unacceptable precedent’ for Harry to allow to pay for the protection of agents – possibly armed. Prince Harry and Meghan Markle with security in Rotorua, New Zealand, in 2018)

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.

It was that decision that he decided to challenge in court, feeling he should have paid, in the same way football clubs do for officers to maintain order at matches.

But the Home Office countered Harry’s claim, saying Ravec deemed it “not appropriate” for wealthy people to “buy” protective security, which may include armed officers, when it had ruled that “the public interest does not warrant” that someone receives such protection. protection on a publicly funded basis.

Lawyers for the Met Police, a stakeholder in the case, said Ravec had been “reasonable” in ruling that “it is wrong for a police agency to endanger officers against payment of a private individual.”

The Duke’s legal team argued that Ravec’s view that allowing payment for protective security would be against the public interest and undermine public trust in the Met Police could not be reconciled with rules expressly allowing certain police departments to be charged.

However, in his ruling, Judge Chamberlain said, “In my opinion, the short answer on this point is that Ravec did not say it would be against the public interest to make wealthy individuals pay for police services.

‘It can be understood as having understood that s. 25(1) (of the Police Act 1996), to which it referred, expressly provides for payment for some such services.

“His reasoning was narrowly confined to the protective security forces under his jurisdiction.

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

‘These services are different from the police services that are provided at sports or entertainment events, for example, because they involve the deployment of highly trained specialist officers, of whom there are a limited number, who have to put themselves at risk. way to protect their clients.

‘Ravec’s reasoning was that there are policy reasons not to make those services available against payment, while others are.

“I can find nothing in that line of reasoning that is demonstrably irrational.”

Mr Justice Chamberlain delivered his ruling in favor of the Home Office shortly after 10am on Tuesday morning.

The court was told at an earlier hearing that Harry’s latest legal challenge was linked to an earlier claim he had made against the Home Office, after being told he would no longer receive ‘the same degree’ of personal protection from a visit to the UK.

A full hearing in that challenge, which also focuses on Ravec’s decision-making and for which Harry was given the go-ahead last summer, has yet to be held.

Harry’s lawyers told the court earlier this month that the Home Office had delegated a “matter of principle” to Ravec about “whether a person whose position was determined by Ravec not to warrant protective security should be given protective security, but the public must compensate’. wallet for the costs of that security provision’.

Ravec later concluded that “individuals should not be allowed to fund private protection,” the judge was told.

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)

A lawyer for the Home Secretary previously told London’s Royal Courts of Justice that the duke’s offer to pay for the expert protection of the Metropolitan Police had been rightly rejected, saying it would set an “unacceptable” precedent.

Robert Palmer KC told the court, including three lawyers representing Prince Harry: “Officers are expected to put themselves in danger to protect the principal [Royal under protection] and in the public interest.

“It is different from ordinary police work and can only be provided if the public interest requires it.

‘It is contrary to those principles that a private individual can pay for that security.’

Tuesday’s ruling comes amid an ongoing High Court trial involving the Duke in which he is bringing a disputed claim against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) over allegations of unlawful information gathering.

Harry is also awaiting rulings on whether similar cases against publishers Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) and News Group Newspapers (NGN) can proceed.