A London judge ruled Tuesday against Prince Harry‘s legal battle with the UK Home Office over his security when he visits Britain.
The Duke of Sussex launched a judicial review in the High Court almost two years ago after his right to armed security was cut off by the Home Office when he quit royal duties.
The British government stopped providing security after Harry and his wife, Meghan, quit their royal duties and moved to California in 2020.
A lawyer for the government argued in court that it should allow the hiring of ‘police officers as private bodyguards for the wealthy.’
Harry has said he doesn’t feel safe visiting Britain with his young children and has cited aggressive press photographers.
Harry was unhappy at the decision that he should not be allowed to even pay privately for armed security just like the average UK citizen and went to court.
Earlier this month, a judge was asked by his lawyers to allow him to bring a case over the decisions.
But the High Court on Tuesday May 23 ruled that the Duke could not also seek a judicial review over whether to let him pay for the specialist police officers out of his own pocket.
The Home Office said the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) considered it was ‘not appropriate’ for wealthy people to ‘buy’ protective security, which might include armed officers, when it had decided that ‘the public interest does not warrant’ someone receiving such protection on a publicly-funded basis.
Lawyers for the Met Police said Ravec had been ‘reasonable’ in finding ‘it is wrong for a policing body to place officers in harm’s way upon payment of a fee by a private individual’.
Justice Chamberlain also refused Harry permission to bring the second challenge, rejecting on a number of grounds.
The court was told at the earlier hearing that his latest legal challenge was related to an earlier claim he brought against the Home Office after he was told he would no longer be given the ‘same degree’ of personal protective security when visiting the UK.
A full hearing in that challenge, which also focuses on Ravec’s decision-making, is yet to be held.
