Friday, June 21, 2024

Prince Harry loses lawsuit against British government over security arrangements in Britain


Receive your free Morning Headlines email with news from our reporters around the world

Sign up for our FREE Morning Headlines email

Prince Harry has lost one of two legal challenges over the British government’s refusal to pay for police protection during his visit to the UK.

The Duke of Sussex, his wife and children will no longer be provided publicly funded security on visits to the UK in 2020, an official committee has decided, as the family steps back from their royal roles in the US.

The High Court has given Prince Harry permission to contest a decision to strip him of the police protection normally given to members of the royal family.

But on Tuesday, it ruled that he could not seek a separate judicial review over his refusal to pay for specialist police officers himself.

It is one of a number of cases the Duke of Sussex is pursuing in London, including allegations of illegal information gathering against three newspaper groups and a defamation claim against a publisher. daily Mail.

In February 2020, the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (known as REVEC) announced that the Duke, his wife and children would no longer automatically be given police protection on visits to the UK.

The High Court was told that it did not know that the committee existed, or that members of the royal household were involved, and believed that its decisions were “independent”.

Legal documents filed by his representatives said there were “significant” tensions between Prince Harry and the Queen’s private secretary, Sir Edward Young, at the time.

After launching a preliminary claim for judicial review over that decision, their representatives challenged further decisions relating to the Sussexes’ security arrangements.

The High Court heard that Prince Harry had offered to “reimburse or actively finance the cost of security measures” to members of the Royal Family in January 2020, but in December 2021 the Home Secretary passed a decision on whether this Revek was possible.

The committee decided that the move would be wrong “in principle” in February 2022.

Lawyers for the Metropolitan Police said that Revek was “reasonable”, adding that “it is wrong for a police body to harm officers on payment of a fee by a private individual”.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex were removed from publicly funded police protection when they stepped back from their royal roles in 2020.

(Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.)

The Home Office told the High Court that the committee considered it was “not appropriate” for wealthy people to “buy” protective security, which could include armed officers, when it decided that “the public interest does not warrant” any Such security is obtained on a publicly funded basis.

The judge rejected the legal arguments of Prince Harry’s team on all five grounds and refused permission to apply for judicial review of the 2021 and 2022 decisions.

Mr Justice Chamberlain ruled that Prince Harry’s offer to pay for police protection “potentially affects anyone who wishes to pay for protective security that would not otherwise have been provided”.

In his ruling, Revek warned: “Any decision to allow private funding would set a precedent of uncertain scope.

“What may begin as an occasional use of a protective security may expand into a more widespread use. Others may equally argue that they should also be allowed to fund a protective security. That principle There would be ‘no built-in guidance’ for the boundaries. This would be unsatisfactory.

There were also concerns that allowing private funding would “dilute the availability” of a limited pool of close security officers in the UK, where police are not regularly armed and undergo intensive specialist training for the role.

Prince Harry’s legal challenge to the original decision by Ravec to deprive him and his family of publicly funded protective security in the UK from March 2020 will be heard at a later date.