Prince Harry Should not Be Allowed to 'Buy' Armed Police—U.K. Home Office

Prince Harry's offer to pay for his police protection would create a situation where "wealthy individuals could 'buy' Protective Security from specialist police officers," according to the U.K. Home Office.

The Duke of Sussex's police bodyguards were removed after he ceased to be a working royal in 2020, the year he left Britain for a new life in the U.S.

Since then, he has argued it is not safe for him to return to the U.K. with Meghan Markle and their children Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet without police protection.

Harry has filed two lawsuits against the British government in an attempt to get the protection reinstated, but a judge ruled on February 17, 2023, that the second should be thrown out.

The second case focused on a decision denying Harry permission to pay privately to have his police team reinstated, which was taken away by the Royalty and VIP Executive Committee (RAVEC) of the Home Office.

Lawyers for the prince moved to try to save the lawsuit, which also names the Metropolitan Police as an interested party, at the High Court in London during a hearing on May 16.

A court filing by Home Office lawyers reads: "In essence, RAVEC considered that it was not appropriate to support an outcome whereby wealthy individuals could 'buy' Protective Security from specialist police officers (potentially including armed officers), in circumstances where RAVEC has determined that the public interest does not warrant that individual receiving such Protective Security on a publicly-funded basis.

"That would be precisely the effect of the [Prince Harry's] claim."

Harry's lawyers are arguing for an interpretation of a key law, Police Act 1996, that the U.K. government's filing says is "hopeless."

The court document added: "There is no legal authority for the proposition that the concept of 'special police services' encompasses the use of police officers as private bodyguards for the wealthy.

"There is no obvious reason why Parliament would have intended such an outcome in the 1996 Act, and every reason of principle and policy why it would not, as the MPS [Metropolitan Police Service] has forcefully reiterated in its own [court filing]."

Prince Harry stands to pay Home Office costs if he loses, though the only sum currently referenced in court documents is a modest £8,042.20, around $10,000.

The Home Office court filing reads: "[Prince Harry] has indicated a challenge to that costs award but given no reason or explanation for why it was not justified."

If the case is rejected, it will be Harry's first court defeat among a plethora of cases he and Meghan have filed since 2019.

It would not affect the outcome of a second lawsuit against the Home Office over the decision to remove his police protection in the first place, which is ongoing.

Additionally, he has three lawsuits alleging phone hacking at three different U.K. newspaper groups and a libel case against the Mail on Sunday, which are also ongoing.

A filing by Harry's team reads: "The refusal of permission is intended for cases which are 'hopeless.' That is not this case. Neither the Judge nor the parties have identified a clean knock-out blow as to why the claim is unarguable."

They argue it was not RAVEC's place to rule on whether Harry should be entitled to pay as the law states the decision should be taken by "the chief officer."

A legal representative for Prince Harry said in January 2022: "While his role within the Institution has changed, his profile as a member of the Royal Family has not. Nor has the threat to him and his family.

"The Duke and Duchess of Sussex personally fund a private security team for their family, yet that security cannot replicate the necessary police protection needed whilst in the U.K. In the absence of such protection, Prince Harry and his family are unable to return to his home.

"The Duke first offered to pay personally for U.K. police protection for himself and his family in January of 2020 at Sandringham. That offer was dismissed. He remains willing to cover the cost of security, as not to impose on the British taxpayer."

The hearing continues.

Jack Royston is chief royal correspondent for Newsweek, based in London. You can find him on Twitter at @jack_royston and read his stories on Newsweek's The Royals Facebook page.

Do you have a question about King Charles III, William and Kate, Meghan and Harry, or their family that you would like our experienced royal correspondents to answer? Email royals@newsweek.com. We'd love to hear from you.