Harry, the youngest son of England’s King Charles, was stripped of the police security normally afforded to royals in the UK after he and his American wife Meghan left official duties in 2020 for the United States.
The High Court in London agreed last year to be allowed to challenge the original decision to end his protection. But on Tuesday it rejected his request for a second judicial review over the rejection of his offer to pay privately for highly-skilled agents.
The decision to abolish publicly funded security was taken by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, known by its acronym RAVEC, which approves security for royalty and personalities such as the prime minister.
Last week, Harry’s lawyers argued that RAVEC did not have the power to reject his offer of funding and that, even if it did, it erred in not considering an exception or hearing arguments on his behalf.
However, lawyers for the police and the government said it would be a mistake to allow the fifth in line to the throne to pay, as it would mean wealthy individuals could “buy” specially trained officers as private bodyguards.
In his opinion, it would not be reasonable to require officers to put themselves in danger if the committee has already considered that it is not in the interest of the public or the State.
This was something very different from paying for police surveillance of a football game, a marathon or even a celebrity wedding.
In his written judgment, Judge Martin Chamberlain agreed.
“RAVEC’s reasoning was that there are political reasons why these services should not be paid for, even though others are. I do not detect anything irrational in that reasoning,” he said.