The failed kidnapper of Princess Anne, who opened fire on rescuers in 1974 and was locked away for decades due to mental illness, has quietly reentered public life -- prompting renewed scrutiny over his release, as The Mirror reports.

Ian Ball, now 77, was detained nearly five decades ago after launching a brazen kidnapping attempt on Princess Anne. During the chaotic attack on The Mall in central London, Ball shot and injured four men who intervened to protect the royal. He was later declared mentally ill and confined indefinitely under the Mental Health Act.

The ordeal began in March 1974 when Ball, then 26, intercepted the car carrying Princess Anne and her then-husband, Captain Mark Phillips. As he attempted to force the princess out of the vehicle, he fired at those who tried to stop him. A journalist, a chauffeur, and two police officers were seriously wounded while trying to thwart the kidnapping attempt.

Harrowing day for royals remembered

During Ball’s court appearance at the Old Bailey two months later, he pleaded guilty to attempted murder and kidnapping. However, due to his diagnosed mental condition, he was not sentenced to a typical prison term. Instead, the court ordered that he be held without time limit at Broadmoor Hospital, a high-security psychiatric facility.

The attack shocked the nation and was seen as one of the most bizarre and dangerous assaults on a British royal in recent memory. Princess Anne remained physically unharmed, but the event became an eerie chapter in modern royal security history. Ball’s commitment to Broadmoor was seen as both a sentence and a measure of his instability.

Despite expectations that Ball would remain institutionalized for life, in 2019, he was released on probation. Details of his release only surfaced later, sparking public concern over the decision to free someone originally deemed too dangerous for release.

Self-published book follows release

Since reentering society, Ball has remained under the radar but has reportedly resumed typical daily activities. A relative described his behavior in the years following freedom as ordinary, noting travel abroad, visits to the theater, and socialization -- though admitting unease at what appeared to be a resurging obsession with the kidnapping attempt.

Ball's decision to self-publish a book detailing his version of the 1974 incident drew the most alarm. Ostensibly written to demonstrate his innocence, the book revisits and recontextualizes the crime from Ball’s perspective. The relative called this renewed interest troubling, suggesting it may indicate unresolved mental health challenges.

Adding to public unease were Ball’s controversial statements to the Daily Mail, in which he dismissed the need to apologize and claimed Princess Anne wasn’t bothered by the ordeal. He even remarked that he had been more scared than the princess during the attack -- a statement perceived by many as downplaying the violence of the act.

Buckingham Palace’s silence raises questions

The royal family has remained tight-lipped about the matter. When approached for comment, a Buckingham Palace spokesperson simply responded, "We have no comment on this matter." The lack of public reaction from royal sources has led some to question oversight and communication around the decision to release Ball.

According to the same relative, Ball had sent letters in the past detailing his improvements and seemed mentally healthier. The relative noted there were no clear signs of the obsessive behavior returning -- until the self-publication of the book. They believed he was still living in a supervised facility, likely receiving treatment.

Although Ball's current legal status is unclear, the royal community and public alike are grappling with how someone once considered a severe threat could be allowed back into society without broader discussion or safeguards.

Lessons to learn

1. Protective vigilance must be ongoing. High-profile individuals, even decades after attempts against their safety, remain in potential danger from obsessives. Security measures and reviews should never be allowed to lapse based simply on the passage of time.

2. Community awareness of released offenders is necessary. When individuals with a violent past are returned to public life, communities deserve transparency, not silence. Though rehabilitation is important, so too is ensuring preparedness in neighborhoods and public spaces.

3. Mental health supervision cannot be static. Mental illness often fluctuates, and ongoing assessment is vital. As in Ball's case, a person may seem well for years only to later reignite former fixations. However, we must always remember that crime can affect anyone, regardless of precautions, and responsibility lies with the perpetrator, not the victim.

Why this story matters

This case underlines the long-reaching consequences of violent crime and the delicate balance between rehabilitation and public safety.

When individuals who commit high-profile violent acts are released, it forces us to grapple as a society with how best to integrate them while keeping others safe.

The story of Ian Ball remains a sobering reminder of the damage left behind after a crime is committed -- even five decades later.