Prince Harry in court again regarding payment for security

With regard to his security arrangements in the UK, the Duke of Sussex is attempting to file a second court complaint against the Home Office.

Harry is asking the High Court for permission to gain a judicial review of a ruling that says he shouldn’t be able to pay for his protected guards privately.

The duke is pursuing this early-stage legal action together with five other civil cases through the London court system.

Harry’s legal team requested permission from the judge to file a lawsuit against the Home Office and the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec), which is under the department’s purview, in December 2021 and February 2022.

Harry’s legal team requested permission from the judge to file a lawsuit against the Home Office and the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec), which is under the department’s purview, in December 2021 and February 2022.

The duke had already filed a claim against the Home Office after learning he wouldn’t receive the “same degree” of personal protective security when visiting the UK, according to information provided to the court in support of the request to continue the legal action.

Harry obtained authorization to proceed with the prior challenge’s entire hearing last summer, which likewise centers on Ravec’s decision-making.

In Tuesday’s case, the court was told by Harry’s lawyers that the Home Office delegated an “issue of principle” to Ravec over “whether an individual whose position had been determined by Ravec not to justify protective security should be permitted to receive protective security but to reimburse the public purse for the cost of that security provision”.

The judge was informed that Ravec later came to the conclusion that “individuals should not be permitted to privately fund protective security”.

In speaking on Harry’s behalf, Shaheed Fatima KC stated that “Ravec has exceeded its authority, its power, because it doesn’t have the power to make this decision in the first place.”

The lawyer argued in writing that Ravec’s decision was in conflict with the law because it permits the “chief officer of police” to offer “special police services” for a fee.

She added: “The principal ‘disadvantage’ that is relied upon by Ravec – that allowing payment for protective security is contrary to the public interest and will undermine public confidence in the Metropolitan Police Service – cannot be reconciled with … the fact that Parliament has expressly allowed for the payment for such services.”

She added: “By creating that discretion, Parliament has clearly decided that in principle, payment for policing is not inconsistent with the public interest or public confidence in the Metropolitan Police Service.”

The barrister continued: “Ravec has not provided any principled or rational basis for drawing a distinction between the provision of protective security for those individuals within the Ravec cohort, who, according to the funding decision, are not permitted to privately fund protective security, and other private individuals, who could privately fund protective security, by making a request to the chief officer of police.”

The Metropolitan Police participated in the hearing on Tuesday as a “interested party”.

Additionally, Ms. Fatima said that the duke was denied the chance to speak to the committee and that Ravec’s judgment was “unreasonable.”

The Home Office’s Robert Palmer KC claimed that the funding decision had nothing to do with additional policing for events like football games, marathons, or celebrity weddings and was instead related to protective security, which required a “very unique set of skills, tactics, and training being made specifically available for an individual.”

The funding choice was “rational and well within the permissible range of decisions open to Ravec as the relevant expert body,” according to Mr. Palmer’s written arguments.

He said that the choice was “simply the setting of a policy position” and that it was neither illegal nor outside of the committee’s authority.

In his opinion, it was “correct” that there was “significant legal uncertainty” regarding how the provision of protective security was governed by the law, as stated by Ravec, which is comprised of senior Home Office officials, senior officers of the Met Police, and senior members of the royal household.

The barrister added that there was “no legal authority for the proposition that the concept of ‘special police services’ encompasses the use of police officers as private bodyguards for the wealthy”.

He said “apparent agreements” by police forces said to be under a policing law included “no example remotely comparable to the present issue: ie the deployment of specialist officers as bodyguards to an individual”.

Mr. Palmer stated that Ravec was “not required to offer” Harry the option to comment on the financing decision and that it was “highly likely” that his comments would not have made a significant difference.

The case proceeds before Mr. Justice Chamberlain.