Legal attempt to get permission to make private payments for police protection by UK’s Prince Harry has failed
His lawyers want a judicial review of the refusal to allow him pay for UK protection, after his security arrangements changed when the prince was no longer a ‘worker’ Royal’.
But a judge decided not to give the green light to such a hearing.
Attorneys for the Interior Department have opposed the idea of allowing the rich to “buy” police security.
The decision came after a day-long hearing in London last week. Since then, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been involved in what their spokesman described as a “near catastrophic car chase” involving the paparazzi in New York.
But at the High Court last week, lawyers for Prince Harry protested decision to withhold private funding to police protection of him and his family during his visit to the UK. Prince Harry loses challenge to pay for protection from British police When Prince Harry is no longer a “working royal” in 2020, it means he no longer has access to his former level of security.
But Prince Harry has objected to the way the Executive Committee’s decision to protect public and royal figures – known as Ravec – includes the safety of senior figures, including the member of the royal family.
“Ravec has overstepped his authority, because he didn’t have the authority to make that decision in the first place,” Prince Harry’s lawyer told the court. They argue that there are provisions in the law that allow payment for “special police services” and that “payment for police services is not inconsistent with the public interest or public belief.” them to the Metropolitan Police Department”.
But Home Office lawyers said the form of protection being discussed, which could mean “specialized officers acting as bodyguards”, is not the same as funding additional police for football games. stone.
A lawyer for the Metropolitan Police argued that it would be unreasonable to put officers in jeopardy just because “an individual pays the fee”.
The Home Office’s legal team said the Ravec committee unanimously rejected the offer of a separate payment and that it was a matter of policy to oppose the idea that a “rich person should be allowed” to buy “protective security”. .
The Home Office said the Ravec Committee was under no obligation to allow Prince Harry to represent them and the decision was unlikely to change. “Given the nature of the arguments filed by the plaintiff, the court can be confident that such statements are unlikely to make any material difference in any case,” the lawyers said. of the Interior Ministry told the court. .
Last July, Prince Harry gave the green light to legal reviews of his safety decision-making process, which have yet to be heard.
