Home Office tells Prince Harry police officers are NOT for hire as ‘private bodyguards for the wealthy’: Duke’s offer to pay for security would set ‘unacceptable’ precedent, court told
- The Duke is after review of the decision not to allow him to pay for the guards
Prince Harry was told by the Home Office that there are some things money can’t buy – including personal armed police guards.
The estranged Duke is pressing on with a legal bid to maintain, when in Britain, the Royal and Specialist Protection command (RASP) armed squad who protected him when he was a working royal, before the acrimonious fall-out with his family.
When told he no longer qualified for its protection after leaving for America with wife Meghan, his offer to pay for it was declined. Now he is arguing in court he should have been allowed to do so, in the same way football clubs pay for officers to maintain order at matches.
But a barrister for the Home Secretary told London’s Royal Courts of Justice that the Duke of Sussex’s offer to pay for the expert Metropolitan police protection had rightly been dismissed, as it would set an ‘unacceptable’ precedent.
Robert Palmer KC told the court, including three barristers representing Prince Harry: ‘Officers are expected to place themselves in harm’s way to protect the principal [Royal under protection] and in the public interest.
Prince Harry is fighting in court after his effort to hire the Royal and Specialist Protection command (RASP) armed squad was declined
The Duke was told he no longer qualified for RASP protection after leaving for America with wife Meghan
‘It’s different from ordinary policing, and can only be provided when the public interest requires it.
‘It is inconsistent with those principles for a private individual to be able to pay for that security.’
If Prince Harry were to be allowed to pay for the RASP armed squad to guard him, said Mr Palmer, it would mean that such protection was available to the wealthy, but not those with less money.
‘It would be deleterious to public confidence in the police force to provide this,’ the barrister for the Home Secretary added.
Prince Harry is currently entangled in six legal cases at London’s High Court, most involving media coverage.
He already has one other in the works over the refusal to maintain his armed guards on visits home from California – and has been granted a forthcoming judicial review on the initial decision he no longer qualified for free protection.
Today he launched a fresh aligned case, seeking a judicial review of the decision not to allow him to pay for the guards.
He claims the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty, RAVEC, did not have the powers to turn down his money offer, and that it should be reconsidered anew by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police instead.
When told he no longer qualified for its protection after leaving for America with wife Meghan, his offer to pay for it was declined. (Pictured: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle with security in Rotorua, New Zealand, in 2018)
His lead barrister Shaheed Fatima KC told the court ‘the process doesn’t make sense’, as anyone else would have been apply to apply directly to the Commissioner to request protection, and indeed to offer to pay.
The way he had been rejected, the barrister said, suggested ‘he is being treated less favourably than everyone else’.
And she argued there was clear precedent for the police being paid to supply officers elsewhere, with the court hearing examples included football matches, festivals, marathons, cycle races, and even a celebrity wedding.
Ms Fatima added that it was wrong Prince Harry had not been invited to submit arguments and evidence to RAVEC, which oversees the work of the RASP armed protection command.
The Home Office argued that RAVEC was not required to consider submissions from anyone, pointing out that Royal Family representatives sit on the committee, along with a senior police officer.
And it has pointed out it would not accept offers from anyone to pay for such specialist armed police security, with the decision being a general principle, not just applying to Prince Harry.
Mr Palmer KC said the committee considered that ‘it was not appropriate to support an outcome whereby wealthy individuals could ‘buy’ protective security from specialist police officers.
‘That would be precisely the effect of the [duke’s] claim.’
The Home Office argued that RAVEC was not required to consider submissions from anyone, pointing out that Royal Family representatives sit on the committee, along with a senior police officer
Ms Fatima said the estranged Royal first offered to pay for his own UK security in a meeting with palace staff in January 2020 – the month when he and Meghan announced that they were stepping away from official duties and living overseas.
But the Metropolitan Police Service told the court it supported the Home Office’s decision on Prince Harry’s claim.
Matthew Butt KC, for the Met, told the judge: ‘It is wrong for a policing body to place officers in harm’s way upon payment of a fee by a private individual.
‘It would be unjust to allow a wealthy principal to pay for private security when this would be denied a principal who did not benefit from such resources, and would divert resources from those deemed to warrant protective security.
‘And to allow an individual to pay for private security would create a precedent. Other wealthy individuals could argue they too should be permitted to pay.’
Judgement was reserved and will be fed into Prince Harry’s parallel case arguing he qualifies for police armed protection in the first place.
He’s now pursuing no fewer than SIX High Court cases
Prince Harry is pursuing no fewer than six High Court cases – two of which had hearings simultaneously yesterday.
If the Duke of Sussex had been in attendance, rather than following progress from afar in California, he would have found himself hopping between courtrooms.
In Court 3 of the Royal Courts of Justice, on the Strand, Harry’s lawyers were trying to convince Mr Justice Chamberlain to let him pursue a particular aspect of his case against the Home Office for denying him police bodyguards.
At the same time, around the corner in Court 15 of the Rolls Building, Harry’s barrister David Sherborne was telling Mr Justice Fancourt why a new witness statement should be allowed in his phone hacking case against the Daily Mirror’s publisher.
Mr Justice Fancourt rejected the application by Harry’s lawyer, saying it was ‘contrary to the interests of justice’. Here are all six of the duke’s ongoing High Court actions:
Prince Harry is pursuing no fewer than six High Court cases – two of which had hearings simultaneously yesterday
Home Office Case 1
Harry lost his Metropolitan Police bodyguards after walking away from his duties as a full-time member of the Royal Family in 2020. He says he no longer feels safe in the UK and he was granted the right to a judicial review of the Home Office decision. Harry claims ‘procedural unfairness’. There will be a full High Court hearing to review the duke’s claim on a date yet to be set. The legal bill for taxpayers has so far been estimated at more than £100,000.
Home Office Case 2
Harry’s lawyers were in court against the Home Office again yesterday claiming that he should have been allowed to pay for the police protection he claims he is due in the first Home Office case.
Home Office Case 3: Newspaper ‘libel’
Harry is suing the Mail on Sunday newspaper over an article it published about the above Home Office case. The duke claims it unfairly accused him of trying to mislead the public. The paper rejects the allegations. Mr Justice Nicklin has been urged by the prince to have the case ruled in his favour without a trial. The judge is due to make a ruling shortly.
Against The Sun
The prince is suing News Group Newspapers, publisher of The Sun and the now-defunct News Of The World, over alleged unlawful information gathering including phone hacking. At a hearing last month, the publisher asked a judge to throw out his claim, arguing it was brought too late, along with a similar claim brought by Hugh Grant. A decision is expected later this year.
… As well as The Mail
Harry is one of seven people, also including Sir Elton John, Sadie Frost, Liz Hurley and Baroness Doreen Lawrence, bringing legal action against Associated Newspapers, publisher of the Mail, Mail on Sunday and Mail Online, over allegations it carried out or commissioned phone hacking and other unlawful information gathering. All the allegations are denied, and the judge is due to rule on whether the case should go to trial.
… And The Mirror
A seven-week trial is ongoing. The prince and three others allege they were targeted by journalists at the Mirror titles during an ‘industrial-scale’ period of unlawful information gathering including phone hacking in the 1990s and 2000s. But the publisher says many of the stories Harry complains about came from other royals, palace courtiers and, in one case, an interview Harry himself gave to the Press Association to mark his 18th birthday.
Source: Read Full Article
