Former Prince Andrew Wins Court Battle Over Unlawful Search Warrants

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s legal team secured a partial victory at London’s High Court when Justice Nicholas Hilliard ruled that Thames Valley Police unlawfully obtained warrants to search two of the former prince’s homes in February.

High Court Ruling on February Raids at Sandringham and Windsor

The judicial review brought by the former royal challenged searches conducted on his 66th birthday in February. On that day, police arrested the King’s younger brother on suspicion of misconduct in public office. The enforcement action targeted properties near Windsor Castle and on King Charles III’s Sandringham estate.

Justice Hilliard confirmed in a 10-page order that significant errors occurred when Thames Valley Police applied for the warrants and when the initial judge granted them.

Thames Valley Police agreed by 22 July to quash the warrants.

The Daily Telegraph first surfaced the legal challenge, noting it marked the first time a member of Britain’s royal family challenged the lawfulness of criminal proceedings against them since the trial of Charles I in 1649. Mountbatten-Windsor did not attend the hearing.

Ongoing Criminal Investigation Into Trade Envoy Allegations

The quashing of the warrants does not invalidate the underlying criminal inquiry. Justice Hilliard stated that the invalidation of the search orders neither ends the investigation nor renders the entire inquiry unlawful.

The police probe began after the United States Department of Justice released millions of pages of documents related to late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Investigators examined whether the former prince shared confidential government information with Epstein during his tenure as a United Kingdom special trade envoy between 2001 and 2011. Following an 11-hour interrogation in February, police released him under investigation without filing formal charges.

Attorney Mark Stephens explained that English law differs from American jurisprudence regarding tainted evidence. While U.S. courts routinely bar the fruits of an unlawful search, English courts permit judges to decide whether seized evidence remains admissible based on its probative value.

Thames Valley Police issued a statement affirming that the inquiry continues. “We continue to pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry to effectively and fairly progress this investigation,” the force said.

Disputes Over Seized Property and Future Court Hearings

A separate legal battle remains unresolved regarding the physical items removed during the February raids. Thames Valley Police applied in June to retain the seized materials under provisions permitting the retention of evidence even if original warrants were flawed.

Mountbatten-Windsor opposed the police application to keep the property. Justice Hilliard indicated he needs to rule on whether the items can be legally retained or if they must be returned, noting there would be little point in handing property back if it could immediately be seized via a fresh warrant.

The High Court scheduled a private hearing for next year to determine how the seized material will be managed and whether any evidence must be excluded from the ongoing proceedings.

Meanwhile, the financial arrangements surrounding the defense remain strained. Buckingham Palace previously made it clear that private funds provided to the former prince by King Charles III should not be used to finance his legal challenges against the search warrants.

King Charles stripped his younger brother of his princely title last year and removed him from official duties to shield the monarchy from ongoing fallout, following a decade of public scrutiny over his association with Epstein that initially forced his resignation as trade envoy in 2011.

Further legal proceedings to determine the admissibility of the seized evidence are set to take place in London’s High Court next year.

More on this story: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor Challenges Search Warrants in High Court