A UK High Court judge has ruled that search warrants used to search properties belonging to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, were unlawful, handing him a legal victory while leaving the wider police investigation against him ongoing.
Justice Nicholas Hilliard ruled on Thursday that Thames Valley Police had relied on the wrong legal provision when obtaining the warrants used to search two properties linked to Andrew earlier this year. The police had accepted that the warrants were improperly issued and agreed that they should be quashed.
The searches were carried out in February after Andrew was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. Officers searched his former Windsor residence, Royal Lodge, and a property connected to him on the Sandringham estate in Norfolk.
Why the warrants were challenged
Andrew’s legal team brought a judicial review challenging the legality of the warrants and the process through which they had been granted.
The High Court found that the warrants had been issued under a section of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 that was not appropriate for the circumstances. The court noted that the application potentially involved legally privileged or specially protected material, which required a different legal route.
The ruling means the warrants themselves cannot stand. However, Justice Hilliard stressed that the decision should not be interpreted as a finding that the entire police investigation is unlawful.
“The fact that the search warrants were quashed does not bring an investigation to an end,” the judge said, according to court reporting.
Investigation linked to Epstein-related allegations
The police investigation concerns allegations connected to Andrew’s relationship with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The investigation followed information contained in documents relating to Epstein. Authorities have been examining allegations that Andrew shared sensitive information with Epstein during his time as a UK trade envoy.
Andrew has denied wrongdoing. He was questioned by police following his arrest and was subsequently released under investigation without being charged.
What happens to the seized material?
The court ruling does not automatically require police to return everything taken during the searches.
Thames Valley Police has made a separate legal application seeking to retain some of the material seized from the properties. The force argues that some material could potentially have been lawfully obtained under a different statutory provision.
That issue is expected to be considered in further proceedings. Andrew’s legal team is opposing the police attempt to retain the material.
Thames Valley Police has also emphasized that its investigation remains active and that the court ruling concerns the legal basis of the search warrants rather than the substance of the allegations being investigated.
A legal victory, but not the end of the case
The ruling gives Andrew a significant procedural victory, but it does not clear him of the allegations under investigation. The court has specifically separated the validity of the search warrants from the broader criminal investigation.
The next legal battle is therefore likely to focus on whether police can continue to use or retain material obtained during the searches and what evidence, if any, can ultimately be relied upon.
