The legal dispute between Prince Harry and the Home Office about his safety while in the UK has been resolved.
Nearly two years ago, the Duke of Sussex filed a petition for judicial review in the High Court after his right to armed security was restricted after he resigned from his royal duties.
He objected to the judgement that he shouldn’t even be able to pay for it privately.
At a hearing earlier this month, a judge was asked by his lawyers to allow him to bring a case over the decisions.
But the High Court have today ruled that the prince could not also seek a judicial review over whether to let him pay for the specialist police officers out of his own pocket.
The Home Office said the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec) considered it was ‘not appropriate’ for wealthy people to ‘buy’ protective security, which might include armed officers, when it had decided that ‘the public interest does not warrant’ someone receiving such protection on a publicly-funded basis.
Lawyers for the Met Police said Ravec had been ‘reasonable’ in finding ‘it is wrong for a policing body to place officers in harm’s way upon payment of a fee by a private individual’.
Mr Justice Chamberlain refused Harry permission to bring the second challenge, rejecting on a number of grounds.
The court was told at the earlier hearing that his latest legal challenge was related to an earlier claim he brought against the Home Office after he was told he would no longer be given the ‘same degree’ of personal protective security when visiting the UK.
A full hearing in that challenge, which also focuses on Ravec’s decision-making and for which Harry was given the go-ahead last summer, is yet to be held.
Tuesday’s ruling comes amid an ongoing High Court trial involving the duke, in which he is bringing a contested claim against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) over allegations of unlawful information gathering.
Harry is also waiting for rulings over whether similar cases against publishers Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) and News Group Newspapers (NGN) can go ahead.
A judgment is also expected in the duke’s libel claim against ANL – publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday – over an article on his case against the Home Office.