An embattled Prince Harry is facing a legal bill of almost one million Australian dollars following a failed High Court bid that would provide the royal and his family armed police guards for protection when visiting the United Kingdom.
After stepping down as working members of the royal family in January 2020, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex fled to the United States of America, where they took refuge in the home of billionaire Tyler Perry after being stripped of their security protection.
WATCH NOW: Prince Harry in court for Associate Newspapers trial. Article continues after video.
Three and a half years later, Harry has now lost his bid for the right to use free full-scale police protection (funded by the taxpayer) against the Home Office, aka the ministerial department responsible for immigration, security, and law and order in both England and Wales.
As a result, the 38-year-old and his actress wife Meghan Markle are set to be out of pocket for an estimated $900,000 AUD for legal fees.
RELATED || Major tabloid apologises to Prince Harry as phone hacking trial starts
Just last week, the polarising prince offered the High Court an alternative solution, if the police protection would not be provided for free, he and Meghan would instead pay for protection out of their own pockets.
To this, High Court judge Sir Martin Chamberlain refused on the basis of the “unacceptable” precedent it would set.
According to barristers representing the Home Office, armed officers could not be “expected to place themselves in harm’s way” and (in the worst-case scenario), stop a bullet to protect a paying customer.
They also added that by allowing the Duke and Duchess to “purchase” police protection, they would be creating a “two-tier system” that purely the rich could exploit.
Sir Martin went on to add that wealthy individuals paying for police guards “was a 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 is a limited number, and who are required to put themselves in harm’s way.”
It remains to be seen if Prince Harry will appeal the ruling.
