The short version
- The High Court ruled that search warrants used in February were unlawful after police admitted they relied on the wrong statutory provision.
- Authorities are seeking permission to keep documents and devices seized during the raids, arguing they could have been obtained under alternative legal frameworks.
- The investigation into alleged misconduct in public office remains active, despite the quashing of the initial warrants and the former prince's denial of wrongdoing.
A High Court judge has ruled that search warrants executed at two properties linked to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor earlier this year were unlawful. The decision follows a judicial review brought by the former prince, during which Thames Valley Police conceded that the initial court’s authorization for the raids was based on an incorrect interpretation of specific legislation. Mr Justice Hilliard accepted this admission and formally quashed the warrants issued on February 18, 2026.
The warrants had permitted officers to search Mountbatten-Windsor’s residence on the Sandringham estate and his former home at Royal Lodge in Windsor. These searches occurred on February 19, coinciding with his arrest on suspicion of misconduct in public office. The police force acknowledged that while they presented all necessary paperwork to the issuing judge, the legal foundation for seizing materials under the cited statute was flawed.
The investigation stems from allegations that Mountbatten-Windsor shared confidential information with Jeffrey Epstein while serving as a UK trade envoy in 2010. These claims gained renewed attention after the US Department of Justice released documents suggesting such exchanges occurred. Mountbatten-Windsor has consistently denied any wrongdoing related to Epstein or the alleged misconduct, maintaining his innocence throughout the legal process.
Although the warrants have been invalidated, the investigation itself is not concluded. Thames Valley Police stated that the quashing of the warrants does not render the entire inquiry unlawful or bring it to an end. Officers continue to pursue reasonable lines of enquiry regarding the allegations of misconduct in public office involving a man in his 60s from Norfolk.
A critical next step involves determining the fate of documents and electronic devices seized during the February raids. Police have applied to retain these items, arguing that while the original warrants were defective, the seizure of evidence could have been justified under a different statutory provision. A hearing on this matter is scheduled for next year, meaning the legal status of the collected materials remains in limbo.
The High Court judge emphasized that the ruling pertains specifically to the legality of the search powers used, not the merits of the underlying case. This distinction allows investigators to proceed with their work, provided they adhere to correct legal procedures for evidence retention and further investigative steps. The police spokesperson noted that ongoing legal proceedings prevent them from providing additional commentary at this time.
This development occurs against a backdrop of significant personal and institutional changes for Mountbatten-Windsor. Late last year, King Charles removed his brother’s royal titles, including the dukedom of York, citing his association with Epstein. While he continues to receive an undisclosed annual stipend from the King’s private funds, palace sources indicated that these funds should not be used to finance the judicial review challenging the police actions.
The case highlights the complex intersection of high-profile investigations and procedural law. By conceding the error in the warrant application, Thames Valley Police avoided a potentially more contentious legal battle over the initial search authority. However, the dispute over evidence retention ensures that the legal challenges surrounding the investigation will persist for months to come.
Legal experts note that while quashing warrants is a significant procedural victory for the defendant, it does not automatically dismiss charges or invalidate evidence if alternative legal grounds exist. The upcoming hearing on evidence retention will be pivotal in determining whether the materials gathered during the raids can continue to support the prosecution’s case.
As the judicial process moves forward, the focus shifts from the legality of the entry to the admissibility of the findings. Mountbatten-Windsor’s legal team continues to challenge the actions of both the chief constable and the Central Criminal Court, ensuring that every aspect of the investigation is scrutinized for compliance with statutory requirements.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- BBC News↗Police accept Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor search warrants were unlawful, court hears
- The Guardian World↗Search warrants used in Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor raids were unlawful, court rules
