Court defeat leaves Harry facing £500,000 legal bill

Prince loses High Court bid to pay for own police guards

PRINCE Harry’s bid to pay for armed police guards was thrown out by a judge yesterday.

But the royal may have to put his hand in his pocket – with the possibility he could be charged full costs for the High Court suit, put at £500,000.

The ruling comes amid a High Court trial in which he is bringing a claim against Mirror Group Newspapers over allegations of unlawful information gathering.

Harry’s taxpayer-funded protection was removed when he stepped back as a senior royal and moved to North America with wife Meghan Markle in January 2020.

His legal fight with the Home Office for the right to free full-scale police protection when visiting Britain is ongoing.

‘An unacceptable precedent’

But last week he paid for a KC and three other barristers to argue in court that his alternative offer to pay for such guards should be reconsidered.

Barristers representing the police and Home Office said armed officers could not be ‘expected to place themselves in harm’s way’ and potentially stop a bullet to protect a paying customer.

Allowing Harry to ‘ buy’ his own police protection would create a two-tier system that only the wealthy could exploit, the argument went. High Court judge

Sir Martin Chamberlain refused the prince permission to apply for judicial review of the rejection of his payment offer.

The judge said the three barristers representing the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan Police had shown that there was nothing illogical about the view that allowing such an offer would have set an ‘unacceptable’ precedent.

And he threw out Harry’s claim that he should have been consulted over the refusal to let him pay by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, known as RAVEC.

Referring to the prince as ‘the principal’ and ‘the claimant’, Sir Martin said: ‘It is not obvious why fairness demanded that one particular principal be afforded the opportunity to make formal representations on that issue. In any event, RAVEC knew the claimant considered he should be permitted to pay for protective security from the Metropolitan Police Service.’

The judge also pointed out that the prince’s barristers had argued, without success, that RAVEC had no right to reject his cash, and that the Met’s commissioner should be asked to consider it instead. He said Sir Mark Rowley had made clear he would reject Harry’s offer to pay for armed guards too. The police have pointed out that when they do take payment, such as for providing security at football matches, it is generally on private land and would not involve potentially leaving London. There are also strict rules surrounding firearms.

Sir Martin said wealthy individuals paying for police guards ‘was different in kind from the police services provided at, for example, sporting or entertainment events, because they involve the deployment of highly trained specialist officers, of whom there are a limited number, and who are required to put themselves in harm’s way’.

A full hearing on Harry’s original challenge on RAVEC’s principal decision is yet to be held.

And he could also appeal against yesterday’s ruling.