Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Thames Valley Police have agreed that search warrants that allowed officers to raid two of his properties earlier this year were unlawful, a High Court judge has said.
Today’s hearing comes just days after it emerged that the disgraced former Duke of York has been warned he cannot use the King’s private money to fund his legal action, thought to be costing tens of thousands of pounds.
Legal Action and Royal Funding
His older brother Charles does provide the ex-prince with cash in the form of an annual stipend to help pay for his living costs at his Marsh Farm on the Sandringham estate. But earlier this week, a Buckingham Palace source said it had been made clear that the money should not be used to fund the Judicial Review.
It came after it was confirmed that Mr Mountbatten-Windsor is launching a bid to quash search warrants which led to his arrest in February. The warrants issued by a judge at the Old Bailey allowed officers to raid his residence on the Sandringham Estate and his former Windsor home, Royal Lodge.
Arrest and Allegations
He was arrested on his 66th birthday on suspicion of misconduct in public office following allegations he shared sensitive information with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein during his time as the UK’s trade envoy. He was detained after police dramatically swooped on the Sandringham estate and was questioned for almost 12 hours at Aylsham Police station in Norfolk before being released under investigation.
The ex-prince was photographed looking shell-shocked as he was driven away from the station after being questioned. Mr Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest came after material was released in the Epstein files, suggesting he had shared sensitive information with Epstein during his stint as a trade envoy between 2001 and 2011.
Legal Challenges and Royal Response
Sean Caulfield, a partner at law firm Hodge Jones and Allen, said the lawfulness of a warrant can be challenged for several reasons. He said: “The police may have gone beyond the remit of the search warrant; for example, there could be outbuildings or vehicles or secondary addresses that were not covered in the first grant of the search warrant.”
“The judge could have misconstrued what he was told and gone beyond the test in the legislation in granting the search warrant, and it would therefore be invalid due to a mistake the judge made. There could also be some procedural errors in terms of dates and signatures on the form that would make it invalid. All of those in theory would result in a search warrant being in some way contaminated, but I do think all of those are quite unlikely.”
At the time of Mr Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest, it emerged that his brother the King, who had previously stripped him of his titles over his links to Epstein, was not given any prior warning. Charles later issued a written statement that expressed his “deepest concern” about the allegations and said “the law must take its course”.
It added: “What now follows is the full, fair and proper process by which this issue is investigated in the appropriate manner and by the appropriate authorities. In this, as I have said before, they have our full and wholehearted support and cooperation.”
It is understood that the King has had no contact with his brother since his arrest. Last year, Charles also stripped him of all of his royal titles over his association with Epstein. The government also previously indicated there could be moves to remove him from the line of succession when the police investigation is over.
In May, it also emerged that detectives investigating Mr Mountbatten-Windsor would consider allegations of sexual misconduct in their inquiry into potential misconduct in public office. Detectives at Thames Valley Police were understood to be concerned that the public believes they are only focused on accusations that the former prince shared information while a trade envoy, when in fact the legal terms of the offence under investigation are much broader. Mr Mountbatten-Windsor has denied any wrongdoing.
