Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has won his legal challenge against Thames Valley Police over search warrants used to search his properties following his arrest in February. Mr Justice Hilliard ruled on Thursday that an agreement was reached that the warrants were unlawful, but police have since launched a bid to retain evidence gathered during the searches.
Police admit defects in warrants
Mr Justice Hilliard said a "significant error was made in the application for and grant of the search warrants," which was "enough to render the warrants, the searches and the material seized unlawful." He added: "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."
Following the hearing, Andrew Gilmore, partner at law firm Grosvenor Law, said: "The fact that the police have admitted there were defects in the search warrants they obtained is quite extraordinary and calls into question the credibility of Thames Valley Police and their ability to conduct such high-profile and sensitive operations."
Arrest and ongoing investigation
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. He was 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.
Mr Justice Hilliard said: "The fact the search warrants have been quashed does not bring the investigation to the end or mean the whole investigation is unlawful." A hearing in the case will be held in private in 2027, meaning the former prince could remain in limbo for several more months before learning if he will be charged.
Police statement and legal basis
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. 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."
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 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 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.
