Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor remains locked in a High Court battle over whether evidence obtained during raids of two of his properties can be used in the criminal investigation into him after police acknowledged the search warrants used were unlawful.
Mr Justice Hilliard said on Thursday that while the former Duke of York and Thames Valley Police had reached an “agreement” that the warrants were unlawful, police have since launched a bid to retain evidence gathered during the searches in February. He said Andrew opposes the bid to retain the evidence, with a hearing in the case to be held in private in 2027.
Warrants quashed but investigation continues
The warrants, issued by a judge at the Old Bailey on February 18, allowed police to raid Andrew’s residence on the Sandringham Estate and his former Windsor home, Royal Lodge, in February. He was then arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office on February 19, his 66th birthday, following allegations he shared sensitive information with Jeffrey Epstein during his time as the UK’s trade envoy.
Andrew was interviewed under caution before being released under investigation, and denies wrongdoing, with the police probe ongoing. The King’s younger brother then challenged the search warrants at the High Court, with Mr Justice Hilliard saying in a ruling on Thursday that an “agreement was reached between the claimant and Thames Valley Police that the search warrants were unlawful”.
Judge: 'Significant error' in warrant application
Mr Justice Hilliard said that a “significant error was made in the application for and grant of the search warrants,” and that was “enough to render the warrants, the searches and the material seized unlawful”. But he also said: “There would be little point handing it back if it could be lawfully seized on some other provision.”
“I will have to decide whether the new application is granted or not. The fact the search warrants have been quashed does not bring the investigation to the end or mean the whole investigation is unlawful,” he added. The judge said police seized “documentary material and electronic devices” during the searches, and that the force “can still retain the property if it would be lawful to seize the property under some other provision once it was returned to the owner”.
Police statement and legal context
In a statement after the hearing, a Thames Valley Police spokesman said: “The initial court’s decision to issue warrants under the specific piece of legislation used was incorrect, and therefore these must be legally quashed. Legal proceedings are currently ongoing to decide how material seized during the searches will be managed and whether we can lawfully retain it in support of our ongoing investigation.”
It is understood that Thames Valley Police applied for search warrants under two parts of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, but an Old Bailey judge decided warrants were only needed under one. After Andrew launched his legal challenge, it was agreed that the warrants should have been granted under the other part of the legislation, known as Section 9, which allows for searches of items covered by legal privilege, or “excluded material”, including business records and confidential journalistic material.
Mr Justice Hilliard said that after the warrants were granted, police later conceded that the judge “could not properly have been satisfied there were reasonable grounds for believing” that section 9 warrants were not needed, because it was “expressly envisaged” that police would search for material covered by legal privilege and other conditions.
Legal experts weigh in on evidence use
Danielle Reece-Greenhalgh, partner at Corker Binning, said that an unlawful or defective search warrant does not stop the police from examining the items during their investigation, and does not automatically mean any evidence is inadmissible in any future trial. She said: “The question of whether and how unlawfully obtained evidence can be used centres on whether its admission would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.”
Sean Caulfield, a partner at law firm Hodge Jones and Allen, said he believes the police will continue to be able to use the material they have while waiting for the 2027 hearing. However, he said he believes it unlikely the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) would make a charging decision until the matter is resolved in their favour. He said: “The police will retain the material and are very likely to continue to examine it thoroughly, but the CPS are likely to wait until this process resolves in their favour before making a charging decision because it’s at least possible that some of the evidence could be ruled inadmissible because of the flaw in the warrant.”
A National Police Chiefs’ Council spokesperson said: “Thames Valley’s investigation into misconduct in public office continues. The force is pursuing a number of live lines of inquiry and continues to support the national response to the release of the Epstein files in various ways, including victim engagement.” The spokesperson said a “small national team made up of two senior detectives and intelligence experts specialising in organised exploitation” are reviewing “a significant volume of material to determine where further investigation may be required”.
Mr Justice Hilliard also said the case had not previously been heard in open court because the parties agreed the search warrants were unlawful without the need for a hearing. Thursday’s hearing was expected to hear the police’s bid to restrict access to documents in the claim, but Mr Justice Hilliard said that on Wednesday afternoon police indicated they no longer pursued the restrictions, subject to certain information being redacted, such as the names of individual officers.
