The High Court’s decision comes the week after Harry and Meghan were involved in, as they characterised it, a “near catastrophic” car chase with paparazzi in New York. Harry and Meghan lost their taxpayer-funded police protection when they stopped being working royals in 2020. I can detect nothing that is arguably irrational in that reasoning.” “Ravec’s reasoning was that there are policy reasons why those services should not be made available for payment, even though others are. Those services are different in kind from the police services provided at, for example, sporting or entertainment events, because they involve the deployment of highly trained specialist officers, of whom there are a limited number, and who are required to put themselves in harm’s way to protect their principals. “Its reasoning was narrowly confined to the protective security services that fall within its remit. “It can be taken to have understood that section 25(1) of the Police Act 1996, to which it referred, expressly envisages payment for some such services. “In my judgment, the short answer to this point is that Ravec did not say that it would be contrary to the public interest to allow wealthy individuals to pay for any police services,” Justice Martin Chamberlain wrote in his ruling. It also argued that providing security for the Sussexes would divert resources from people in greater need. The Metropolitan Police, whose officers were previously responsible for protecting Harry, said it would be wrong for “a policing body to place officers in harm’s way upon payment of a fee by a private individual”. It said the type of protection required for Harry was distinct from that used at one-off events such as sporting matches, marathons and celebrity weddings, for which police can be privately funded.Īnd while maintaining that Ravec was not required to give Harry a chance to make representations, it argued that such representations “would have been highly likely to have made no substantial difference” to its decision anyway. The British government opposed him, arguing that allowing people to pay for round-the-clock police security would create a two-tier system, giving the wealthy access to a service that was unavailable to normal members of the public.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |