A criminal investigation into Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is ongoing despite search warrants that allowed police to raid two of his properties being ruled unlawful, the High Court has heard.
The former Duke of York had launched a legal challenge against Thames Valley Police over the lawfulness of warrants issued by a judge at the Old Bailey. The warrants permitted officers to raid his residence on the Sandringham Estate and his former Windsor home, Royal Lodge, in February.
Agreement on unlawfulness
At a hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice on Thursday, which Andrew did not attend, Mr Justice Hilliard said that “agreement was reached between the claimant and Thames Valley Police that the search warrants were unlawful”.
But the judge also said that “the fact that the search warrants were quashed does not bring an investigation to an end, or mean that the whole of the investigation was unlawful”.
A Thames Valley Police spokesman said in a statement after the hearing that “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.
“Our investigation into alleged misconduct in public office by a man in his 60s from Norfolk remains ongoing, and we continue to pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry to effectively and fairly progress this investigation.”
Arrest and allegations
Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office following allegations he shared sensitive information with Jeffrey Epstein during his time as the UK’s trade envoy.
He was interviewed under caution before being released under investigation, and denies wrongdoing.
Mr Justice Hilliard said in Thursday’s ruling that the judge who granted the search warrants on February 18 had done so on the basis that the items wanted were not subject to legal privilege or which amounted to special procedure material.
Legal challenges and next steps
He said special procedure material included “material which is in possession of a person who acquired it or created it in the court of any trade, business, profession or other occupation or for the purpose of any paid or unpaid public office, and who holds it subject to an express or implied undertaking to hold it in confidence”.
He continued: “Shortly after proceedings were issued the second defendant conceded the judge could not properly have been satisfied there were reasonable grounds for believing the material searched for did not include items subject to legal privilege or special procedure material, because the search for this material was especially envisaged in the application for search warrants and inherent in respect of the allegation.”
The judge also said that police made an application in June to allow them to retain evidence obtained through the searches, even though the search warrants were unlawful. He continued that Mountbatten-Windsor opposes the bid to retain the evidence, with a hearing in the case to be held in private in 2027.
Thursday’s hearing had been expected to deal with a bid by police to restrict access to documents in the legal claim, but Mr Justice Hilliard said that on Wednesday afternoon police indicated that they no longer pursued the matter.
