High Court Rules Search Warrants Unlawful in Investigation Into Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor
A criminal investigation into Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor remains active after the High Court heard that police search warrants used to raid two of his properties were unlawful. The former Duke of York launched a judicial review against Thames Valley Police over warrants issued by a judge at the Old Bailey that permitted February raids on his residence at the Sandringham Estate and his former Windsor home, Royal Lodge.
The warrants had been obtained under the wrong statutory provision, specifically section eight of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Mr Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested on his 66th birthday on February 19 on suspicion of misconduct in public office following information that emerged from Jeffrey Epstein files.
Court Determines How Police Manage Seized Material
Despite the quashing of the warrants, Mr Justice Hilliard stated that the investigation itself remains active.
Thames Valley Police issued a statement clarifying that the court decision to issue warrants under the specific piece of legislation was incorrect and therefore legally quashed. Legal proceedings are currently underway to determine how material seized during the searches, including documentary material and electronic devices, will be managed and whether police can lawfully retain it to support the ongoing inquiry. Mr Mountbatten-Windsor opposes that application, with a further hearing scheduled for next year, according to The Guardian.
Prince Denies Sharing Sensitive Information with Jeffrey Epstein
The police investigation centers on allegations that the former prince shared sensitive information with Jeffrey Epstein during his tenure as the United Kingdom’s trade envoy. Mr Mountbatten-Windsor was interviewed under caution before being released under investigation, and he denies any wrongdoing.
Legal Challenges Over Search Warrants
Legal experts note that search warrants can be contested for several procedural and statutory reasons. Sean Caulfield, a partner at law firm Hodge Jones and Allen, explained to the Irish Examiner that police may have exceeded the remit of the warrant, judges may have misconstrued statutory tests, or technical procedural errors may have occurred on forms.
In this case, the legal arguments hinged on special procedure material and legally privileged documents. Mr Justice Hilliard noted that the presence of legally privileged material was expressly envisaged in the application, and that such documents were likely in the possession of Mr Mountbatten-Windsor, who acquired them in circumstances which would make it special procedure material.
Questions Regarding the Ongoing Legal Proceedings
Why were the search warrants declared unlawful?
Thames Valley Police conceded that they obtained the search powers under the wrong statutory provision of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, making the Old Bailey warrants legally invalid.
What happens to the evidence seized during the raids?
Police have filed an application to retain the seized documentary and electronic material under a different statutory provision. Mr Mountbatten-Windsor opposes this retention, and a court hearing is scheduled for next year to resolve the matter.
Keep reading