Prince Harry's security claims labelled 'nonsense' by an ex-Scotland Yard boss
By Jo Abi|
The Duke of Sussex claim that the real reason his security was pulled was part of a secret plan to trap him in the UK has been labelled "complete nonsense" by an ex-Scotland Yard boss.
Prince Harry, 40, said his "worst fears" had been realised after he discovered what he claims was a plot to keep him and his wife Meghan Markle in the UK after they announced plans to resign as senior working royals.
The royal made the claim after a two-day partly private hearing due to confidential evidence being given.
READ MORE: Sophie Delezio marries her childhood sweetheart
Harry told The Telegraph UK "People would be shocked by what's being held back" adding that his "worst fears have been confirmed by the whole legal disclosure in this case and that's really sad".
Buckingham Palace sources have denied the claim, according to The Sun.
READ MORE: Your full guide to this year's Sydney Royal Easter Show
Dai Davies, the former head of Scotland Yard's Royal Protection told The Mail on Sunday that Harry's claim is "frankly bizarre".
"He is given a liaison officer who has access to the most up-to-date intelligence reports," Davies said.
"The idea that he needs 24/7 armed protection is ridiculous, and so too is the idea that Britain is unsafe for him," he continued.
"This new argument that he is advancing is frankly bizarre. It was a Ravec decision, pure and simple, nothing to do with the Royal Family."
The Duke of Sussex wants his British security detail restored and is challenging a lower court ruling that upheld the decision, with his attendance at the Court of Appeal an indication of the case's importance to him.
At the end of the hearing on Wednesday, Judge Sir Geoffrey Vos said the Court of Appeal's decision would be given in writing at a later date, which was "most unlikely" to be before Easter.
A High Court judge ruled last year that a government panel's decision to provide "bespoke" security for Harry on an as-needed basis was not unlawful, irrational, or unjustified.
Harry claimed he and his family are endangered when visiting his homeland because of hostility aimed at him and his wife Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, on social media and through relentless hounding by news media.
After being denied government-sponsored protection, Harry faced at least two serious security threats, his lawyer said in court papers.
He lost a related court case in which he sought permission to privately pay for a police detail when in the UK but a judge denied that offer after a government lawyer argued officers shouldn't be used as "private bodyguards for the wealthy."
READ MORE: Top 10 air fryers that will change the way you cook
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex resigned as working royals in 2020. It is understood they initially sought to continue part-time duties but were told this wouldn't be possible.
They were also told their full-time UK security would be revoked. Such protection is currently granted to the King and Queen, the Prince and Princess of Wales, and their three children.
Ravec's final decision shared on February 28, 2020, stated that Metropolitan Police protection would no longer be appropriate after the Sussexes' departure and that they should receive a different degree of protection when in the UK.
For a daily dose of 9honey, subscribe to our newsletter here.
The Sussexes would instead receive a "bespoke" security service, whereby they would be required to give 30 days' notice of any plans to travel to the UK, with each visit being assessed for threat levels and whether protection is needed.
Shaheed Fatima KC, who represents Harry, told the appeal hearing that the duke had been "singled out for different, unjustified and inferior treatment".
She added that Harry "does not accept that 'bespoke' means 'better'."
FOLLOW US ON WHATSAPP HERE: Stay across all the latest in celebrity, lifestyle and opinion via our WhatsApp channel. No comments, no algorithm and nobody can see your private details.
Auto news: A new wave of plug-in hybrid utes from China is set to be challenged by a Japanese brand.
