The judge said Prince Harry did not have the right to intervene in the fight to pay for police protection

[ad_1]

A judge has said the Duke of Sussex is not entitled to make personal statements about the decision to deny him the right to pay for police protection, because his request for a legal challenge was denied.

Prince Harry argued that the government’s decision not to allow him to fund his private guarantee was “procedurally unfair” because he was not given the opportunity to make his case.

He applied for judicial review based on his plea offer, which he claimed should have prompted the Home Office to “overturn and restore” its decision.

However, Mr. Justice Chamberlain denied the application for a number of reasons.

He said the Royal Executive and VIP Committee (Ravec), the Home Office committee responsible for making decisions on VIP security, had been asked to consider the request to deviate from its usual policy.

crux of the matter

He said the issue at hand could affect anyone who might seek payment for protective security, but did not take into account “the specific security needs of a particular principal.”

The judge said Ravik knew the duke believed he should be allowed to pay for preventative protection from the Metropolitan Police.

He added, “It is not clear why Equity required an opportunity for a particular director to file formal representations regarding this case.”

“In my opinion, it is indisputable that the failure to call representatives on a matter of principle was a violation of natural justice.”

Rich people ‘shouldn’t buy private police services’

The Home Office disputed the Duke’s claim, arguing that the Metropolitan Police are not for hire and that a wealthy person should not be able to “buy” the services of private police.

It found that it was not in the public interest for someone to privately fund such protection and that such a move would undermine public confidence in the force.

Attorneys for The Met, a party interested in the case, said Ravec was “reasonable” in finding that it was “wrong for a police authority to put officers in harm’s way when a fee is paid by a private individual.”

At his request, the Duke challenged the Home Secretary’s decision to delegate the final decision on his security to Ravik.

He said that the decision was exclusively up to the Chief Police Officer and that while Ravik could express an opinion, she could not make the final decision.

The judge said he had “carefully considered” the Met Commissioner’s statement that, should such a request be made to the force, the answer would inevitably be “No”.

Elsewhere, Duke’s legal team has argued that Ravec’s position is irreconcilable with rules that explicitly allow charging for certain police services.

[ad_2]