A former Scotland Yard leader has dismissed Prince Harry’s claim about police protection being withdrawn to prevent him and Meghan Markle from leaving the UK as being ‘complete nonsense.’ The Duke of Sussex came back to London for a two-day appeal hearing this week at the Royal Courts of Justice, where he argued that the removal of publicly funded security in 2020 was done to deter the couple from stepping away from royal life and relocating to the United States. After a three-year legal battle, Prince Harry told The Telegraph that he was ‘overwhelmed’ and ‘exhausted’ by the process, calling the loss of his police protection ‘difficult to swallow’, and described this case as the most important of all his legal battles.

The former head of Scotland Yard’s Royal Protection, Dai Davies, said the Duke of Sussex was ‘talking complete nonsense’ and told the Mail Online: “He is given a liaison officer who has access to the most up to date intelligence reports. This person will deal with Harry’s own security people who are extremely capable.

“The idea that he needs 24/7 armed protection is ridiculous – so too is the idea that Britain is unsafe for him.

“This new argument that he is advancing is frankly bizarre. It was a Ravec (government committee) decision, pure and simple – nothing to do with the Royal Family.”

He added: “It would be beneath [the Queen] not to allow Ravec to do their job professionally, or make leanings against them.”

A source close to Priti Patel, who was the Home Secretary at the time, reportedly said that the decision was made by the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (RAVEC), based on a professional risk assessment after the couple stepped down from their roles as senior working royals.

On his way out of the Royal Courts of Justice, Harry told the Telegraph: “We were trying to create this happy house.”

He added: “People would be shocked by what’s being held back.”

Prince Harry reportedly expressed that his worst fears were confirmed by the legal disclosures in his case, calling it “really sad,” and stated he was motivated by a desire to “expose injustice” and determined to “get under the bonnet and fix it.”