[bitontheslide]

Prince Harry has lost a legal challenge over his bid to be allowed to make private payments for police protection.

His lawyers wanted a judicial review of the rejection of his offer to pay for protection in the UK, after his security arrangements changed when the prince stopped being a "working royal".

But a judge has ruled not to give the go ahead for such a hearing.

Home Office lawyers had opposed the idea of allowing wealthy people to "buy" security from the police.

This ruling followed a one-day court hearing in London last week.

Since then the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been involved in what their spokesperson described as a "near catastrophic car chase" involving paparazzi in New York.

But at the High Court last week, lawyers for Prince Harry had challenged the decision to reject his private funding for police protection for himself and his family when visiting the UK.

When Prince Harry stepped down from being a "working royal" in 2020 it meant he no longer had access to his previous level of security.

But Prince Harry challenged how this decision was reached by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures - known as Ravec - which covers security for high-profile figures, including senior royals.

"Ravec has exceeded its authority, its power, because it doesn't have the power to make this decision in the first place," Prince Harry's lawyers had told the court.

They argued that there were provisions in legislation allowing for payment for "special police services" and as such "payment for policing is not inconsistent with the public interest or public confidence in the Metropolitan Police Service".

But lawyers for the Home Office said the type of protection under discussion, which could mean "specialist officers as bodyguards", was not the same as funding for extra policing for football matches.

A barrister for the Metropolitan Police argued that it would be unreasonable to expose officers to danger because of "payment of a fee by a private individual".

The Home Office legal team said the Ravec committee had unanimously rejected the offer of private payment and that it was a matter of policy to oppose the idea that a "wealthy person should be permitted to 'buy' protective security".

The Home Office said there was no requirement for the Ravec committee to allow Prince Harry to make representations to them and there was little prospect of the decision being changed.

"Given the nature of the arguments now advanced by the claimant, the court can be confident that such representations would have been highly likely to have made no substantial difference in any event," the Home Office's lawyers told the court.

Last July, Prince Harry was successful in getting the go-ahead for legal reviews of the decision-making process over his security, which have still to be heard.

But he has now lost in his challenge over wanting to pay privately for security costs, which he had previously said was "not to impose on the taxpayer".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65609209

----------------------------------------------------------


So that's why they had the car chase drama last week

[jet]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

So that's why they had the car chase drama last week

I wouldn’t be surprised. What a total failure that over dramatised farce turned out to be.
Their mouthpiece Omid Scobie said the ‘near fatal’ car chase was a 'clear demonstration' of why the duke and his family are in a 'different category' from other celebrity couples. Of course the court didn’t buy it.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Prince Harry has lost a legal challenge over his bid to be allowed to make private payments for police protection.

His lawyers wanted a judicial review of the rejection of his offer to pay for protection in the UK, after his security arrangements changed when the prince stopped being a "working royal".

But a judge has ruled not to give the go ahead for such a hearing.

Home Office lawyers had opposed the idea of allowing wealthy people to "buy" security from the police.

This ruling followed a one-day court hearing in London last week.

Since then the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been involved in what their spokesperson described as a "near catastrophic car chase" involving paparazzi in New York.

But at the High Court last week, lawyers for Prince Harry had challenged the decision to reject his private funding for police protection for himself and his family when visiting the UK.

When Prince Harry stepped down from being a "working royal" in 2020 it meant he no longer had access to his previous level of security.

But Prince Harry challenged how this decision was reached by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures - known as Ravec - which covers security for high-profile figures, including senior royals.

"Ravec has exceeded its authority, its power, because it doesn't have the power to make this decision in the first place," Prince Harry's lawyers had told the court.

They argued that there were provisions in legislation allowing for payment for "special police services" and as such "payment for policing is not inconsistent with the public interest or public confidence in the Metropolitan Police Service".

But lawyers for the Home Office said the type of protection under discussion, which could mean "specialist officers as bodyguards", was not the same as funding for extra policing for football matches.

A barrister for the Metropolitan Police argued that it would be unreasonable to expose officers to danger because of "payment of a fee by a private individual".

The Home Office legal team said the Ravec committee had unanimously rejected the offer of private payment and that it was a matter of policy to oppose the idea that a "wealthy person should be permitted to 'buy' protective security".

The Home Office said there was no requirement for the Ravec committee to allow Prince Harry to make representations to them and there was little prospect of the decision being changed.

"Given the nature of the arguments now advanced by the claimant, the court can be confident that such representations would have been highly likely to have made no substantial difference in any event," the Home Office's lawyers told the court.

Last July, Prince Harry was successful in getting the go-ahead for legal reviews of the decision-making process over his security, which have still to be heard.

But he has now lost in his challenge over wanting to pay privately for security costs, which he had previously said was "not to impose on the taxpayer".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65609209

----------------------------------------------------------


So that's why they had the car chase drama last week

Mortifying.....

[parmnion]

Did the self entitled fud actually think he was a football club and able to pay the police to protect him.

Hes got far too much money. Hes a bit like Tim, dim but nice, the old harry Enfield character where he plays a thick as **** rich kid.

[UserSince2005]

Feed him to the wolves.

[arista]

He will pay for his Own Protection.

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by arista

He will pay for his Own Protection.

Yes but his protection team can’t carry guns in this country

[arista]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

Yes but his protection team can’t carry guns in this country

Sure


They will have Metal Extending Sticks

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Prince Harry has lost a legal challenge over his bid to be allowed to make private payments for police protection.

His lawyers wanted a judicial review of the rejection of his offer to pay for protection in the UK, after his security arrangements changed when the prince stopped being a "working royal".

But a judge has ruled not to give the go ahead for such a hearing.

Home Office lawyers had opposed the idea of allowing wealthy people to "buy" security from the police.

This ruling followed a one-day court hearing in London last week.

Since then the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been involved in what their spokesperson described as a "near catastrophic car chase" involving paparazzi in New York.

But at the High Court last week, lawyers for Prince Harry had challenged the decision to reject his private funding for police protection for himself and his family when visiting the UK.

When Prince Harry stepped down from being a "working royal" in 2020 it meant he no longer had access to his previous level of security.

But Prince Harry challenged how this decision was reached by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures - known as Ravec - which covers security for high-profile figures, including senior royals.

"Ravec has exceeded its authority, its power, because it doesn't have the power to make this decision in the first place," Prince Harry's lawyers had told the court.

They argued that there were provisions in legislation allowing for payment for "special police services" and as such "payment for policing is not inconsistent with the public interest or public confidence in the Metropolitan Police Service".

But lawyers for the Home Office said the type of protection under discussion, which could mean "specialist officers as bodyguards", was not the same as funding for extra policing for football matches.

A barrister for the Metropolitan Police argued that it would be unreasonable to expose officers to danger because of "payment of a fee by a private individual".

The Home Office legal team said the Ravec committee had unanimously rejected the offer of private payment and that it was a matter of policy to oppose the idea that a "wealthy person should be permitted to 'buy' protective security".

The Home Office said there was no requirement for the Ravec committee to allow Prince Harry to make representations to them and there was little prospect of the decision being changed.

"Given the nature of the arguments now advanced by the claimant, the court can be confident that such representations would have been highly likely to have made no substantial difference in any event," the Home Office's lawyers told the court.

Last July, Prince Harry was successful in getting the go-ahead for legal reviews of the decision-making process over his security, which have still to be heard.

But he has now lost in his challenge over wanting to pay privately for security costs, which he had previously said was "not to impose on the taxpayer".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65609209

----------------------------------------------------------


So that's why they had the car chase drama last week

That’s exactly what it was all about….they are so transparent…how embarrassing was that over exaggerated drams…

[jet]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...me-Office.html

Prince Harry faces £500,000 legal bill after High Court defeat: Royal loses bid to be able to pay for his own police bodyguards – and taxpayers could also be left £300,000 out of pocket

[Oliver_W]

Why does he want police protection so much, rather than personal bodyguards? No-one's stopping him from getting some of them.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by jet

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...me-Office.html

Prince Harry faces £500,000 legal bill after High Court defeat: Royal loses bid to be able to pay for his own police bodyguards – and taxpayers could also be left £300,000 out of pocket

Why does the British Tax payer have to pay??....he doesn't even live here anymore...surely this should have been a private challenge at his own expense..

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Why does he want police protection so much, rather than personal bodyguards? No-one's stopping him from getting some of them.

it's not the bodyguards he needs, it's the intelligence reports that the police have access to that he really wants. That's always been the case and his request for "protection" has always been disingenuous. For the intelligence services to now include Harry would be a significant tax payer burden that Harry has no intention of paying for

[arista]

Better Days 2018


[Prince Harry and Meghan Markle with security
in Rotorua, New Zealand, in 2018]

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Why does he want police protection so much, rather than personal bodyguards? No-one's stopping him from getting some of them.

Because private bodyguards cant carry guns in this country,they don’t have access to all the resources the met

[rusticgal]

Harry should have thought everything through a bit better when he decided to quit....