The High Court has ruled that search warrants used by police to raid the homes of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor during his arrest earlier this year were unlawful. Despite this ruling, Thames Valley Police will continue to hold the seized documents and electronic devices until a hearing scheduled for 2027, and the criminal investigation into the former prince remains active.
Mountbatten-Windsor, who is in his 60s and from Norfolk, was arrested on February 19 on suspicion of misconduct in public office. He has consistently denied any wrongdoing. Following his arrest, his legal team launched a judicial review to challenge the legality of the search warrants, targeting the actions of the force's chief constable and the Central Criminal Court.
The legal dispute centered on the specific legislation used to authorize the raids. Thames Valley Police had originally applied for search warrants under sections eight and nine of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 during a hearing at the Central Criminal Court the day before the searches took place. However, that court decided that only section eight warrants were required and issued them on that basis. The subsequent legal challenge successfully argued that the court should have issued the warrants under section nine instead.
On Thursday, Mr Justice Hilliard announced at the High Court that an agreement had been reached between the police and Mountbatten-Windsor acknowledging that the search warrants were indeed unlawful. However, the judge clarified that this development does not halt the police inquiry. "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," Mr Justice Hilliard stated.
Addressing why the police are permitted to retain the seized items despite the unlawful search, the judge explained the legal reasoning. He stated that "someone who is in possession of property as a result of an unlawful search… can still retain the property if it would be lawful to seize the property under some other provision once it was returned to the owner." He added that "there would be little point in handing property back if it could then simply be lawfully seized under some other provision."
The criminal investigation stems from documents published by the US Department of Justice. These files suggested that Mountbatten-Windsor had forwarded confidential information to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in 2010, during his tenure as a UK trade envoy. Mountbatten-Windsor has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing concerning Epstein.
A spokesperson for Thames Valley Police emphasized that the agreement to quash the warrants was based strictly on a technical court decision regarding their legal foundation, rather than the substance of the case. "The agreement that led to the quashing of the warrants relates specifically to a decision made by the court regarding the legal basis for these and is not a judgement on our ongoing investigation," the spokesperson said. The force maintained that it had provided the court with all necessary paperwork and followed correct legal processes.
Currently, legal proceedings are underway to determine how the seized materials will be managed and whether they can be lawfully retained to support the ongoing case. The police spokesperson confirmed that the "investigation into alleged misconduct in public office by a man in his 60s from Norfolk remains ongoing, and we continue to pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry to effectively and fairly progress this investigation."
