Police feared Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor might halt searches of his homes by arguing that officers first needed to speak to his brother, the King, newly released documents show.
Before Thames Valley Police carried out raids at Sandringham and Windsor, officers were concerned they could be refused entry unless they secured search warrants.
They sought warrants from an Old Bailey judge, warning that Andrew or his legal team might prevent access by claiming “that the property belongs to someone else (the King) and that separate legal permission should be sought”.
Investigators feared evidence could be lost if they were forced to wait for permission from Buckingham Palace before searching the former Duke of York’s properties.
The concerns are detailed in legal papers obtained by Our News Outlet in connection with Andrew’s successful challenge against the police raids on his homes.
The High Court approved a Mail application to publish documents from the royal’s legal battle with Thames Valley Police and the Old Bailey judge who authorised searches at Sandringham and Windsor.
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor earlier this year, following police raids on his home, including a search of Royal Lodge that lasted several days
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor leaves Aylsham Police Station after being released from custody in February
An aerial view of officers at Royal Lodge in Windsor, Berkshire, on Friday, February 20
The Detective Chief Inspector leading the operation told the Old Bailey judge that Andrew was “a suspect in a number of serious offences”. The officer also said it was “a matter of public record” that Andrew had previously failed to engage with other investigative lines concerning his alleged links to Jeffrey Epstein.
The unnamed DCI said: “My investigative objectives are to secure relevant evidence in a timely and secure fashion. Failure to do so risks loss of evidence and a consequent loss of public trust and confidence in the investigation.”
The senior officer told the court that items held by Andrew were “likely to be of significant value to the investigation”.
Because police could not be certain they would be granted access without a warrant, the officer asked the judge to approve one. “I have no way of any degree of certainty that AMW or his legal representative will grant entry to the premises or, were they to do so, whether they would seek to frustrate certain elements of [the searches],” he said.
Thames Valley Police submitted the warrant applications on February 18, one day before officers carried out the early-morning raids. Judge Mark Lucraft KC, the Recorder of London, approved the warrants.
The case papers presented to the judge included excerpts from the applications.
They stated that the DCI had “reasonable grounds for believing that [Andrew] had committed an offence of misconduct in public office”.
The documents alleged that, while serving as the UK’s trade envoy in 2010, Andrew “forwarded official reports…to Jeffrey Epstein within minutes of receiving them”. The reports related to official British government trips he made to Singapore, Vietnam, China and Hong Kong.
Police also alleged that Andrew met a private investment firm in 2011, while he was trade envoy, and suggested that Epstein could invest in the business.
According to investigators, the conduct represented an “inappropriate and unlawful disclosure of material whilst holding a public office”.
It emerged last week, on October 8, that the King’s brother had won a judicial review against the police and the court, with the High Court ruling that the raids were unlawful.
The documents released today reveal that Andrew’s lawyers argued the searches had not been lawful, for several reasons. Among them, they said there was no reason for saying the former prince would not cooperate. There was also ‘no proper basis’ for concluding that he might destroy evidence.
RELATED: Judge Cuts Off Ex-Venezuelan Dictator Maduro in NYC Torture Case
They also said the police had breached their duty to provide them with details of their warrant application to the judge.
The legal drama threw into doubt the ongoing investigation by Thames Valley Police into Andrew and his dealings with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. But Andrew is not in the clear, with police – who admitted mistakes in their warrants – asking a judge for permission to retain documents and electronic devices that were seized.
The disgraced former prince was arrested on his 66th birthday in February and quizzed for nearly 12 hours at Aylsham police station. He was questioned on suspicion of misconduct in public office.
Six days of searches ensued at Royal Lodge, the Windsor home he was forced to give up after more than 20 years, and at his then-residence, Wood Farm on the Sandringham Estate in Norfolk.
The one-time Duke of York has been seen only fleetingly since, having now settled into nearby Marsh Farm. But in an extraordinary hearing at the High Court on October 8, details emerged of his legal challenge.
It became clear that Andrew had applied for a judicial review, asking a judge to rule that the police swoops on his homes were unlawful. He listed five grounds, only one of which has been made public – that some of the material seized might have been held by him ‘in confidence’.
The one-time Duke of York has been seen only fleetingly since, having now settled into nearby Marsh Farm. But in an extraordinary hearing at the High Court on October 8, details emerged of his legal challenge.
The one-time Duke of York has been seen only fleetingly since, having now settled into nearby Marsh Farm. But in an extraordinary hearing at the High Court on October 8, details emerged of his legal challenge.
The challenge was pursued at the High Court earlier this year, but without the public being told anything at the time.
Thames Valley Police conceded that the search warrants had been unlawful and Mr Justice Hilliard formally quashed the search warrants in a ruling behind closed doors on July 22.
When the story finally emerged, Thames Valley Police blamed the fiasco squarely on the Old Bailey judge who had approved the search warrants.
In theory, the force could be made to return all of Andrew’s belongings seized in the raids. Such a move would deal a potentially fatal blow to the misconduct in public office investigation that was launched after the publication of the Epstein Files this year.
But Thames Valley Police has made a separate application to be allowed to retain the material, and has vowed its investigation would continue.
After admitting the raids were unlawful, police applied on June 4 for permission to keep Andrew’s belongings anyway.
They must show there is a legitimate reason for them to retain them. This application will be heard by the same judge but not until next year.
Police officers at the gates of Andrew’s former home in Berkshire, Royal Lodge, in Windsor
Police officers at the gates of Andrew’s former home in Berkshire, Royal Lodge, in Windsor
Police officers in plain clothes arrived at Wood Farm in February where searches began
Andrew was questioned about his time as the UK’s trade envoy, a role he held between 2001 to 2011.
Emails suggested he had shared government information with his Wall Street friend, convicted paedophile Epstein.
In a remark about when the police would complete their investigation, Mr Justice Hilliard said: ‘I suspect that is quite a way off.’
