He claimed that the government's refusal to allow him to pay for his own protection was procedurally unfair since he was not given the opportunity to make his argument.
The Duke applied for a judicial review based on his offer to cover the costs, which he believed should have prompted the Home Office to reconsider their decision. However, the application was rejected by Mr Justice Chamberlain on multiple grounds.
The judge explained that the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec), the Home Office committee responsible for determining VIP security matters, had already considered a request to deviate from its usual policy.
While this issue could impact anyone seeking to privately finance their protective security, the judge noted that it did not specifically address the unique security requirements of an individual. He added that Ravec was aware of the Duke's belief that he should be allowed to pay for protective security from the Metropolitan Police.
The judge concluded that it was not evident why fairness demanded that only one individual be given the chance to formally present their case on this matter and therefore ruled that the failure to invite representations on the issue did not breach natural justice.
The Home Office, opposing the Duke's claim, argued that the Metropolitan Police should not be available for hire and that it was inappropriate for a wealthy individual to "purchase" special police services. The Home Office found that privately funding such protection would not be in the public interest and could undermine public confidence in the police force.
Lawyers representing the Metropolitan Police, an interested party in the case, supported Ravec's position and stated that it would be wrong to place officers in harm's way in exchange for payment by a private individual.
In his application, the Duke challenged the Home Secretary's decision to delegate the final authority on his security to Ravec. He argued that the chief officer of police should have exclusive control over the decision, with Ravec only providing an opinion rather than making the final determination.
The judge considered the statement of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner that the force would inevitably reject such a request, should it be made. Additionally, the Duke's legal team argued that Ravec's position contradicted rules that permitted charging for certain police services. However, the judge concluded that Ravec did not state that it would be against the public interest to allow wealthy individuals to pay for any police services.
The judge emphasized that these services were distinct from those provided at sporting or entertainment events because they involved highly trained specialist officers, of whom there were limited numbers, who put themselves at risk to protect their principals. The judge found no irrationality in Ravec's reasoning and ultimately refused permission for a judicial review.
The decision to deny the Duke and Duchess of Sussex automatic security while in the UK was made by Ravec in February 2020, shortly after Prince Harry announced his intention to step back as a working member of the royal family and reside abroad. The committee determined that the couple's plan to live overseas as private individuals did not easily fit into any of the categories within its framework.
Separately, the Duke is awaiting rulings on whether similar cases against the publishers of the Daily Mail and The Sun can proceed. Furthermore, a judgment is anticipated regarding his libel claim against Associated Newspapers, which publishes the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday, regarding an article related to his case against the Home Office.
Additionally, the Duke has initiated a disputed claim against Mirror Group Newspapers over allegations of unlawful information gathering, including phone hacking.
