Search warrants against Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor ruled unlawful as UK police probe continues

A High Court judge has quashed search warrants used in the arrest of former prince Andrew, but Thames Valley Police say the Epstein-linked investigation remains ongoing.

High Court quashes Andrew arrest warrants, but Epstein investigation presses on

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has won his legal challenge against Thames Valley Police over the search warrants that led to his arrest earlier this year, the Times of Malta reports.

Mr Justice Hilliard, sitting at the High Court in central London, ruled on Thursday that Thames Valley Police (TVP) had obtained the search powers under the wrong statutory provision. The warrants were consequently quashed as unlawful.

The former prince had brought a judicial review challenging the legality of both TVP's actions and those of the Central Criminal Court, which originally granted the warrants. The warrants were issued by an Old Bailey judge on 18 February; Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested the following day — his 66th birthday — on suspicion of misconduct in public office.

Police had begun searching the former Duke of York's residence on the Sandringham estate and his former Windsor home, Royal Lodge, on the same day as his arrest. Documentary material and electronic devices were seized during those searches.

Arrest tied to Epstein files

The arrest followed information that emerged from the Jeffrey Epstein files. It was alleged that when Mountbatten-Windsor served as the UK's trade envoy, he shared sensitive information with Epstein, a convicted child sex offender.

Despite the ruling, Hilliard was explicit that the investigation itself remains intact. "The fact that the search warrants were quashed does not bring the investigation to an end or mean that the whole of the investigation is unlawful," he told the court.

A senior police source echoed that position: "It's not going to bring the investigation to a halt or affect the chances of success." The source added that responsibility for the error lay with the judicial decision to grant the warrant, not with the police operation itself: "The news media might say the police messed up. But it was the judicial decision that was incorrect."

Technical legal error at the heart of the ruling

Hilliard explained that a search warrant granted under section eight of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 is conditional on the issuing judge being satisfied there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the material sought does not include items subject to legal privilege or special procedure material — which covers documents held in confidence in a professional capacity.

In this case, the presence of legally privileged material had been expressly anticipated in the original warrant application, and such material was likely in the possession of Mountbatten-Windsor under circumstances that would classify it as special procedure material. The judge concluded that only a warrant issued under section nine of PACE would have been lawful.

Hilliard noted that police have applied to retain the seized property on the basis that it would have been lawful to seize it under a different provision. That application will be heard next year. Mountbatten-Windsor is contesting it.

Police coordination with prosecutors continues

TVP have been in discussions with lawyers from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) about the strength of their case and what evidence would be required to support a prosecution.

In a statement, a TVP spokesperson said: "The agreement that led to the quashing of the warrants relates specifically to a decision made by the court regarding the legal basis for these and is not a judgment on our ongoing investigation. We ensured the court was presented with all the necessary information and paperwork to inform their decision, following the correct legal processes throughout."

Nick Vamos, the former head of special crime at the CPS, suggested the setback may prove limited in its practical impact. "Given the technical nature of the errors revealed today, I expect the crown court to rule in due course that the police can keep the material, or at least as much of it as they would have been entitled to seize in the first place, so they may not ultimately pay much of a price beyond today's red faces," he said.

Royal ties severed

Late last year, King Charles stripped his brother of his right to be a prince and of his dukedom following his association with Epstein. Mountbatten-Windsor continues to receive an annual stipend from King Charles's private funds, the amount of which has not been disclosed. A palace source told reporters, however, that it had been made clear the stipend should not be used to fund the judicial review.

Source: Times of Malta