The last time the Duke received a full risk assessment was in 2019, when he was still a full-time working member of the Royal family. Then, he was deemed such a target that he was put in the highest category – a level seven out of seven.
Mr Basu said it was “incredibly positive” that the Home Office had decided to review the perceived threat level.
He said: “That is the right thing to do, and I cannot see a situation in which his threat and risk have reduced in the intervening time when he’s in the UK.
“As one of the most recognisable men on the planet, his threat and risk will be, in my view, the same as it was in 2019. It may even have increased because of the publicity around him.”
The former police chief believes the Duke could never have won his legal challenge against the Home Office. He has described it as more of an “ethical” decision, or one that is simply rooted in “common sense”.
Security decision not expected for weeks
Whatever Ravec decides, and the review is still in progress, Mr Basu said it should bring some closure.
He said: “What [the Duke] was fighting for was some transparency in the decision-making process. Although he has won some of that through disclosure in the court, he still hasn’t had a full explanation. This is the start of that explanation. He might not agree with the rationale, but at least he will be given the rationale.”
The security issue is now intrinsically linked to the Duke’s fragile relationship with his father. He made clear last year that he believed the King had the power to influence Ravec, because his private secretary sat on the committee. The Prince told the BBC: “I’ve never asked him to intervene – I’ve asked him to step out of the way and let the experts do their job.”
Buckingham Palace rejected the suggestion, insisting that Ravec was wholly independent.
The Duke has also refused to bring his wife and children back to the UK without full police protection, fearing their lives are at risk, which in turn impairs their relationship with their grandfather.
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source www.telegraph.co.uk ’
