Prince Harry Loses Legal Battle on Police Protection When in UK - DreamTeamDownloads1, FTP Help, Movies, Bollywood, Applications, etc. & Mature Sex Forum, Rapidshare, Filefactory, Freakshare, Rapidgator, Turbobit, & More MULTI Filehosts

Ladybbird · 24-05-23, 02:42

Prince Harry Loses Challenge to Pay For Police Protection in UK

Prince Harry has lost a legal challenge over his bid to be allowed to make private payments for police protection.

BBC 24 MAY 2023

His lawyers wanted a judicial review of the rejection of his offer to pay for protection in the UK, after his security arrangements changed when the prince stopped being a "working royal".

But a judge has ruled not to give the go ahead for such a hearing.

Home Office lawyers had opposed the idea of allowing wealthy people to "buy" security from the police.

This ruling, refusing permission for a judicial review, followed a one-day court hearing in London last week.

Since then the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been involved in what their spokesperson described as a "near catastrophic car chase" involving paparazzi in New York.

But at the High Court last week, lawyers for Prince Harry had challenged the decision to reject his private funding for police protection when visiting the UK.

When Prince Harry stepped down from being a "working royal" in 2020 it meant he no longer had access to his previous level of security.

But Prince Harry challenged how this decision was reached by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures - known as Ravec - which covers security for high-profile figures, including senior royals.

"Ravec has exceeded its authority, its power, because it doesn't have the power to make this decision in the first place," Prince Harry's lawyers had told the court.

They argued that there were provisions in legislation allowing for payment for "special police services" and as such "payment for policing is not inconsistent with the public interest".

But lawyers for the Home Office said the type of protection under discussion, which could mean "specialist officers as bodyguards", was not the same as funding for extra policing for football matches.

A barrister for the Metropolitan Police argued that it would be unreasonable to expose officers to danger because of "payment of a fee by a private individual".

The Home Office legal team said the Ravec committee had unanimously rejected the offer of private payment and that it was a matter of policy to oppose the idea that a "wealthy person should be permitted to 'buy' protective security".

The Home Office said there was no requirement for the Ravec committee to allow Prince Harry to make representations to them and there was little prospect of the decision being changed.

"Given the nature of the arguments now advanced by the claimant, the court can be confident that such representations would have been highly likely to have made no substantial difference in any event," the Home Office's lawyers told the court.

'Procedural Unfairness'

Mr Justice Chamberlain ruled provisions for paying for police services, such as at "sporting or entertainment events", were not the same as for specialist protection officers "who are required to put themselves in harm's way".

There was nothing "irrational" in Ravec's arguments about why its specialist services "should not be made available for payment", the judge. added.

Prince Harry has lost this case, which he had said was intended "not to impose on the taxpayer" for security costs. But there are still other claims to be heard over his security in the UK.

Last July, he won the right to also challenge what he regards as the "procedural unfairness" around Ravec's decision-making - because he was not given an opportunity to make "informed representations beforehand" - with dates still to be set for a hearing.

Ladybbird · 05-12-23, 05:52

Prince Harry Back in High Court Over Legal Right to Protection

Prince Harry is preparing for a three-day High Court battle after winning the right to challenge the Home Offices’ decision not to grant him automatic police protection when he is in the UK.

The Guardian 5 DEC 2023

The Duke of Sussex will argue that he was treated unfairly when denied security protection after claiming members of the Royal household should not have been able to influence the process.

The claim, which will be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice, comes amid continuing tensions after the King and the Princesses of Wales were named in relation to alleged speculation over the skin colour of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s unborn child.

The hearing will take place as senior aides meet to discuss the issues arising from the claims, made in Endgame, a book about the Royal family written by Omid Scobie a journalist and friend of the duchess.

At a previous High Court hearing in March last year, the Duke’s legal team were warned not to include evidence that was “inadmissible and should be excluded from proceedings” after being told that legal proceedings did not exist “for the purpose of putting irrelevant matters” in the public domain.

The Dutch edition of Mr Scobie’s book, which alleges the King and Princess made remarks about the skin colour of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s child, Archie, has been withdrawn from sale.

Ladybbird · 28-02-24, 13:51

Prince Harry Loses Challenge Against Decision to Revoke His Right to Automatic Police Protection When in The UK

The High Court ruled that the government had not acted unlawfully when it made the decision. Lawyers for the Duke of Sussex had argued that officials failed to properly consider the impact of a "successful attack" on him.

BBC 28 FEB 2024

Prince Harry has lost a legal challenge against the governments' decision to take away his right to automatic high-level police protection when he is in the UK.

His lawyers had argued that he was "singled out" and treated "less favourably" in the decision, which meant he would no longer be given the "same degree" of taxpayer-funded personal protective security when visiting.

It was claimed that a failure to carry out a risk analysis and fully consider the impact of a "successful attack" on him meant the approach to his protection was "unlawful and unfair".

But in a ruling on Wednesday, retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane rejected the Duke of Sussex's case.

He ruled the decision to change his security status was not unlawful or "irrational", and that there had been no "procedural unfairness".

The judge added: "Even if such procedural unfairness occurred, the court would in any event be prevented from granting the claimant [Prince Harry] relief.

"This is because, leaving aside any such unlawfulness, it is highly likely that the outcome for the claimant would not have been substantially different."

A legal spokesperson said Prince Harry will appeal the judgment - and he is not looking for "preferential treatment".

"The Duke of Sussex hopes he will obtain justice from the Court of Appeal, and makes no further comment while the case is ongoing," they added.

24-05-23, 02:42	#1
Ladybbird Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 47,643 Thanks: 27,645 Thanked 14,458 Times in 10,262 Posts Awards Showcase Total Awards: 8	Prince Harry Loses Legal Battle on Police Protection When in UK Prince Harry Loses Challenge to Pay For Police Protection in UK Prince Harry has lost a legal challenge over his bid to be allowed to make private payments for police protection. BBC 24 MAY 2023 His lawyers wanted a judicial review of the rejection of his offer to pay for protection in the UK, after his security arrangements changed when the prince stopped being a "working royal". But a judge has ruled not to give the go ahead for such a hearing. Home Office lawyers had opposed the idea of allowing wealthy people to "buy" security from the police. This ruling, refusing permission for a judicial review, followed a one-day court hearing in London last week. Since then the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been involved in what their spokesperson described as a "near catastrophic car chase" involving paparazzi in New York. But at the High Court last week, lawyers for Prince Harry had challenged the decision to reject his private funding for police protection when visiting the UK. When Prince Harry stepped down from being a "working royal" in 2020 it meant he no longer had access to his previous level of security. But Prince Harry challenged how this decision was reached by the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures - known as Ravec - which covers security for high-profile figures, including senior royals. "Ravec has exceeded its authority, its power, because it doesn't have the power to make this decision in the first place," Prince Harry's lawyers had told the court. They argued that there were provisions in legislation allowing for payment for "special police services" and as such "payment for policing is not inconsistent with the public interest". But lawyers for the Home Office said the type of protection under discussion, which could mean "specialist officers as bodyguards", was not the same as funding for extra policing for football matches. A barrister for the Metropolitan Police argued that it would be unreasonable to expose officers to danger because of "payment of a fee by a private individual". The Home Office legal team said the Ravec committee had unanimously rejected the offer of private payment and that it was a matter of policy to oppose the idea that a "wealthy person should be permitted to 'buy' protective security". The Home Office said there was no requirement for the Ravec committee to allow Prince Harry to make representations to them and there was little prospect of the decision being changed. "Given the nature of the arguments now advanced by the claimant, the court can be confident that such representations would have been highly likely to have made no substantial difference in any event," the Home Office's lawyers told the court. 'Procedural Unfairness' Mr Justice Chamberlain ruled provisions for paying for police services, such as at "sporting or entertainment events", were not the same as for specialist protection officers "who are required to put themselves in harm's way". There was nothing "irrational" in Ravec's arguments about why its specialist services "should not be made available for payment", the judge. added. Prince Harry has lost this case, which he had said was intended "not to impose on the taxpayer" for security costs. But there are still other claims to be heard over his security in the UK. Last July, he won the right to also challenge what he regards as the "procedural unfairness" around Ravec's decision-making - because he was not given an opportunity to make "informed representations beforehand" - with dates still to be set for a hearing. __________________ PUTIN TRUMP & Netanyahu Will Meet in HELL ..................*SHARKS are Closing in on TRUMP*.......................... *TRUMP WARNS; 'There'll Be a Bloodbath* If I Don't Get Elected'..MAGA - MyAssGotArrested...IT's COMING** PLEASE HELP THIS SITE..Click DONATE & Thanks to ALL Members of ... 1.. THIS SITE IS MORE THAN JUST WAREZ...& TO STOP SPAM-IF YOU WANT TO POST, YOUR FIRST POST MUST BE IN WELCOMES

05-12-23, 05:52	#2
Ladybbird Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 47,643 Thanks: 27,645 Thanked 14,458 Times in 10,262 Posts Awards Showcase Total Awards: 8	re: Prince Harry Loses Legal Battle on Police Protection When in UK Prince Harry Back in High Court Over Legal Right to Protection Prince Harry is preparing for a three-day High Court battle after winning the right to challenge the Home Offices’ decision not to grant him automatic police protection when he is in the UK. The Guardian 5 DEC 2023 The Duke of Sussex will argue that he was treated unfairly when denied security protection after claiming members of the Royal household should not have been able to influence the process. The claim, which will be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice, comes amid continuing tensions after the King and the Princesses of Wales were named in relation to alleged speculation over the skin colour of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s unborn child. The hearing will take place as senior aides meet to discuss the issues arising from the claims, made in Endgame, a book about the Royal family written by Omid Scobie a journalist and friend of the duchess. At a previous High Court hearing in March last year, the Duke’s legal team were warned not to include evidence that was “inadmissible and should be excluded from proceedings” after being told that legal proceedings did not exist “for the purpose of putting irrelevant matters” in the public domain. *The Dutch edition of Mr Scobie’s book, which alleges the King and Princess made remarks about the skin colour of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s child, Archie, has been withdrawn from sale.*

28-02-24, 13:51	#3
Ladybbird Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 47,643 Thanks: 27,645 Thanked 14,458 Times in 10,262 Posts Awards Showcase Total Awards: 8	Re: Prince Harry Loses Legal Battle on Police Protection When in UK Prince Harry Loses Challenge Against Decision to Revoke His Right to Automatic Police Protection When in The UK The High Court ruled that the government had not acted unlawfully when it made the decision. Lawyers for the Duke of Sussex had argued that officials failed to properly consider the impact of a "successful attack" on him. BBC 28 FEB 2024 Prince Harry has lost a legal challenge against the governments' decision to take away his right to automatic high-level police protection when he is in the UK. His lawyers had argued that he was "singled out" and treated "less favourably" in the decision, which meant he would no longer be given the "same degree" of taxpayer-funded personal protective security when visiting. It was claimed that a failure to carry out a risk analysis and fully consider the impact of a "successful attack" on him meant the approach to his protection was "unlawful and unfair". But in a ruling on Wednesday, retired High Court judge Sir Peter Lane rejected the Duke of Sussex's case. He ruled the decision to change his security status was not unlawful or "irrational", and that there had been no "procedural unfairness". The judge added: "Even if such procedural unfairness occurred, the court would in any event be prevented from granting the claimant [Prince Harry] relief. "This is because, leaving aside any such unlawfulness, it is highly likely that the outcome for the claimant would not have been substantially different." A legal spokesperson said Prince Harry will appeal the judgment - and he is not looking for "preferential treatment". *"The Duke of Sussex hopes he will obtain justice from the Court of Appeal, and makes no further comment while the case is ongoing," they added.* __________________ PUTIN TRUMP & Netanyahu Will Meet in HELL ..................*SHARKS are Closing in on TRUMP*.......................... *TRUMP WARNS; 'There'll Be a Bloodbath* If I Don't Get Elected'..MAGA - MyAssGotArrested...IT's COMING** PLEASE HELP THIS SITE..Click DONATE & Thanks to ALL Members of ... 1.. THIS SITE IS MORE THAN JUST WAREZ...& TO STOP SPAM-IF YOU WANT TO POST, YOUR FIRST POST MUST BE IN WELCOMES

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)