The Duke of Sussex was not entitled to make personal representations over the decision to deny him the right to pay for his police protection, a judge said, as he denied his application for a legal challenge.

Prince Harry argued that the Government decision not to allow him to fund his own security was “procedurally unfair” as he was not given the opportunity to put forward his case.

He applied for a judicial review based on his offer to pay, which he claimed should have prompted the Home Office to “quash and retake” its decision.

However, Mr Justice Chamberlain refused the application on a number of grounds.

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

Crux of the matter

The issue at stake could affect anyone who might seek to pay for protective security, he said, but did not consider “the specific security needs of a particular principal”.

The judge said Ravec knew the Duke believed that he should be permitted to pay for protective security from the Metropolitan Police.

“It is not obvious why fairness demanded that one particular principal be afforded the opportunity to make formal representations on that issue,” he added.

“In my judgment, it is not arguable that the failure to invite representations on the issue of principle was a breach of natural justice.”

Wealthy ‘should not buy special police services’

The Home Office, opposing the Duke’s claim, argued that the Metropolitan Police was not for hire and that a wealthy person should not be able to “buy” special police services.

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.

Lawyers for the Met, an interested party in the case, said Ravec had been “reasonable” in finding that it was “wrong for a policing body to place officers in harm’s way upon payment of a fee by a private individual”.

In his application, the Duke challenged the Home Secretary’s decision to delegate the final decision about his security to Ravec.

He argued that the decision rested exclusively with the chief officer of police and that while Ravec could express a view, it could not make the final decision.

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

Elsewhere, the Duke’s legal team argued that Ravec’s position could not be reconciled with rules that expressly allowed charging for certain police services.