The Metropolitan Police has admitted failing to pass a letter detailing allegations of child abuse against Meghan Markle’s estranged father to US authorities. Thomas Markle’s stepson also claimed Markle Senior, when living in the Philippines, stored child abuse images on his computer. Meghan says police informed her of the letter eight years ago and assured her that the matter would be dealt with by the Met’s Royalty and Specialist Protection Command (RaSP). Whatever subsequently happened, a mistake was made.

The affair will only add pressure on police forces dealing with other high-profile allegations concerning the Royal family, namely Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. A year ago, the Met investigated reports that Andrew had allegedly asked one of his bodyguards to “dig up dirt” on his accuser, the late Virginia Giuffre. Now, the Met is considering referring the incident to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. Recently, Thames Valley Police were also found to have erred, albeit on a technicality, over the warrants obtained to search Andrew’s home. Have our increasingly troubled police services, once again, been seen to mismanage cases concerning “The Firm”?

First, it is important to understand how such allegations are logged and why they might slip through the cracks. The information concerning Thomas Markle was passed anonymously to the police. RaSP is not an investigative unit; its role is to provide protective security for its “principals”. The information was therefore passed to the Fixated Threat Assessment Center (FTAC), which monitors individuals displaying an unhealthy interest in VIPs. I suspect this is where an error may have occurred. The Telegraph reported that the letter contained material raising “concerns in relation to the Duchess’s security arrangements”. One must also wonder whether intelligence-sharing has been affected by increasingly strained relations with the American FBI over the Epstein case.

Did, then, FTAC and RaSP treat the allegations as intelligence in a protection context rather than an allegation of crime to be passed on? After all, the Met’s jurisdiction is neither in the Philippines nor the USA. Nonetheless, UK crime-recording standards are strict — technically, an entry should have been made on the force system. Furthermore, there are detailed protocols for intelligence-sharing concerning child abuse between international partners. This is what the Met will be trying to establish this weekend to inform its decision on whether to refer the matter to the IOPC.

The affair will only increase concerns around the embattled Metropolitan Police’s ability to manage sensitive inquiries. The Markle incident is, ultimately, a simple case of sharing and recording information. Were officers blinded by the sensitivities of dealing with the Royals, not least in the context of the Duchess of Sussex’s strained relations with the wider Royal family? Where were the experienced supervisors and decision-makers? Serving officers point to an ongoing process of atrophying skills and experience, as officers are transferred in and out of specialist units to support the Met’s core policing duties.

Then there’s a political dimension too, with officials increasingly asking why London’s police force is tasked with protecting VIPs resident across the UK. Wouldn’t such costly functions be more efficiently undertaken by, say, the controversial National Police Service proposed by the government? This is why this stuff matters for police and why wise heads are required — an information-sharing mistake can quickly be turned into ammunition for Whitehall’s many internecine battles. Which is why, over the weekend, New Scotland Yard will be taking a keen interest in exactly how the Markle letter was managed.