Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has won a High Court victory after judges ruled that police searches of his homes were carried out unlawfully.
The decision raises fresh questions over the Thames Valley Police investigation into the King’s brother and his links to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. However, the case is far from over. The force, which acknowledged errors in the search warrants, has asked the court for permission to keep documents and electronic devices taken during raids earlier this year.
The former prince was arrested on his 66th birthday in February and questioned for almost 12 hours at Aylsham police station. He was interviewed on suspicion of misconduct in public office.
Police then carried out searches over six days at Royal Lodge in Windsor, the residence he was required to leave after more than two decades, and at Wood Farm on the Sandringham Estate in Norfolk, where he was living at the time.
Since then, the one-time Duke of York has made only rare public appearances and has moved to nearby Marsh Farm. Details of his legal battle emerged during an extraordinary High Court hearing.
Andrew sought a judicial review, asking the court to declare the police raids unlawful. His legal team put forward five grounds for the challenge, although only one has been disclosed publicly: the possibility that some of the seized material was being held by him “in confidence”.
The case was heard at the High Court earlier this year, but proceedings took place without the public being given details at the time.
Thames Valley Police accepted that the warrants were unlawful, and Mr Justice Hilliard formally cancelled them in a ruling delivered behind closed doors on July 22, the court heard during a public hearing.
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor earlier this year, following police raids that included a search of Royal Lodge lasting several days
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor leaving Aylsham Police Station after his release from custody in February
An aerial view of officers at Royal Lodge in Windsor, Berkshire, on Friday, February 20
When the development became public on Thursday, Thames Valley Police placed responsibility for the error on the unnamed Old Bailey judge who had authorised the warrants. Alan Payne KC, representing the force, told the court: “The judge made an error in granting the warrants.” The documents were apparently issued under the wrong legal provision.
Despite the setback, Thames Valley Police said its investigation would continue.
The force could, in principle, be ordered to return everything taken from Andrew during the searches. That outcome could seriously undermine, or even fatally damage, the misconduct in public office inquiry launched following the publication of the Epstein Files this year.
Investigators questioned Andrew about his period as the UK’s trade envoy, a position he held from 2001 to 2011.
Emails appeared to indicate that he had passed government information to Epstein, his Wall Street associate who was convicted of sex offences.
Although police accepted that the raids had been unlawful, they applied on June 4 to retain Andrew’s belongings while the investigation continued.
To do so, officers must demonstrate that they have a valid legal basis for keeping the material. The application will be considered by the same judge, although the hearing is not expected to take place until next year.
Asked when the investigation might be completed, Mr Justice Hilliard suggested there was still a considerable wait ahead, saying: “I suspect that is quite a way off.”
Plain-clothes police officers arrived at Wood Farm in February as the searches got under way
A convoy of cars drove close to Wood Farm in Sandringham shortly before it was revealed that Andrew had been arrested on his 66th birthday
The judge said the police could keep the items seized for now because ‘there would be little point in handing property back if it could then simply be lawfully seized under some other provision’.
He added: ‘A significant error was made in the application for and grant of the search warrants. Acknowledging that error is important.
‘The fact that the search warrants were quashed does not bring the investigation to an end or mean that the whole of the investigation is unlawful.’
Police stressed the inquiry ‘remains ongoing, and we continue to pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry to effectively and fairly progress this investigation’.
In a statement, the force said the setback was ‘not a judgment on our ongoing investigation’, and insisted police had followed ‘the correct legal processes throughout’.
Legal experts questioned where the developments leave the case.
Andrew Gilmore, a partner at 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.’
Nick Vamos, a partner at Peters & Peters and a former head of special crime at the Crown Prosecution Service, said: ‘The real question is how much damage has it done to the investigation?’
Onlookers said eight people were in plain clothes ‘but appeared to be police officers’
Police officers at the gates of Andrew’s former home in Berkshire, Royal Lodge, in Windsor
He said a judge would decide ‘whether the police would have been entitled to seize the material had they not messed up the paperwork’, adding: ‘If so, they can keep it but, if not, they will have to hand it back.’
Danielle Reece-Greenhalgh, partner at Corker Binning, said the quashing of the search warrants did not automatically render any seized evidence inadmissible, adding: ‘Nor does it preclude the police from examining seized items, such as devices or paperwork, during their investigation.’
It is the first time since Charles I in 1649 that a royal has challenged the lawfulness of criminal proceedings. After losing his treason case, having asserted the divine right of kings and refusing to recognise the court, the then-monarch had his head chopped off.
In Andrew’s case, the search of Wood Farm took one day but officers scoured 30-room Royal Lodge for almost six days.
During the searches, police vans were repeatedly seen leaving the grounds of the property. The whole case is fraught with constitutional complexities, as the King’s younger brother has taken on one of the Crown’s most senior judges, the Old Bailey judge who approved the search warrants.
More details of Andrew’s legal challenge are set to be made public in the coming weeks. Thames Valley Police had applied to throw a veil of secrecy over the case, but abandoned its stance after a Daily Mail journalist got wind of it and asked the court for access to the legal documents last week.
The judge said such documents would now be made public, but he gave parties in the case 14 days to make representations about whether redactions were necessary – for example, to blank out the names of police officers.
Mr Mountbatten-Windsor was stripped of his titles and evicted from Royal Lodge last autumn amid the scandal over his relationship with Epstein. He was the most senior Royal Family member to be arrested in modern times.
