Former Scotland Yard Chief Refutes Prince Harry's Claims on Police Protection Withdrawal

A former leader of Scotland Yard has dismissed the claims made by Prince Harry regarding the withdrawal of his police protection as utter nonsense. The Duke of Sussex returned to London to attend a two-day appeal hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, where he argued that the removal of publicly funded security in 2020 was an effort to discourage him and Meghan Markle from stepping away from royal duties and moving to the United States. Following a three-year legal struggle, Prince Harry expressed to The Telegraph that he felt overwhelmed and exhausted by the proceedings, labeling the loss of his police protection as "difficult to swallow” and emphasizing that this case holds the utmost importance among his legal challenges.

Dai Davies, the former head of Scotland Yard's Royal Protection, criticized Harry's arguments, saying they were entirely unfounded. He explained to the Mail Online that the Duke of Sussex has a liaison officer who possesses access to the latest intelligence reports and collaborates with his own skilled security team. According to Davies, the notion that Harry requires constant armed protection is unrealistic, and he deemed the idea that Britain poses any danger to Harry as absurd. He clarified that the decision to withdraw his protection stemmed from the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (RAVEC) and was based on a thorough professional risk assessment conducted after the couple stepped down as senior royals.

During his departure from the Royal Courts of Justice, Harry spoke to The Telegraph about his desire to establish a happy family home and suggested that the public would be shocked to learn of the withheld information. Expressing sadness over the legal findings, he mentioned that they confirmed his worst fears. Motivated by a wish to "expose injustice," Harry is determined to address and rectify these issues. As he appeals the decision regarding the reduction of his security, he has voiced concerns about his safety while traveling to the UK with his children, while the outcome of this appeal is expected to be determined after Easter.