High Court Rules Search Warrants Used at Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's Homes Were Unlawful as Police Fight to Keep Seized Evidence

Thames Valley Police has acknowledged that the search warrants used to raid the homes of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor were unlawful, a concession made during a High Court hearing on Thursday. The force accepted that the initial court decision to issue the warrants under a specific piece of legislation was incorrect, casting doubt over the legal footing of a high-profile arrest that has gripped public attention since February.

The ruling represents a significant procedural setback for investigators, though it does not signal the end of the criminal inquiry. Judge Mr Justice Hilliard confirmed that both Mountbatten-Windsor and the police had reached an agreement that the search warrants were unlawful. Nevertheless, he was careful to stress that quashing the warrants does not terminate the wider investigation or render the entire probe illegal.

The former prince, who has consistently denied any wrongdoing, was arrested on 19 February on suspicion of misconduct in public office. His legal team responded swiftly by launching a judicial review challenging the lawfulness of the search warrants, a move that has now yielded a partial victory in the High Court.

According to details aired in court, Thames Valley Police had 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, commonly known as the Old Bailey, the day before officers searched the properties. The court determined that only section eight warrants were necessary and granted them on that basis. However, subsequent legal challenge established that the warrants should have been issued under section nine instead.

The distinction between the two sections is far from trivial. Section nine warrants carry stricter safeguards designed to protect sensitive material, including legal advice from a suspect's lawyer or confidential documents that do not genuinely belong to the individual under investigation, such as copies of work-related papers from an employer. The category of warrant granted in this instance, by contrast, failed to account for the possibility that such protected material could be swept up during a search.

Under normal circumstances, police who encounter such sensitive material during a search are expected to return it rather than exploit it as part of their investigation. The law, however, does allow officers to seize or potentially retain such material even in the event of an error, provided they satisfy additional legal tests. Thames Valley Police must now persuade a judge that the material is likely to be of substantive value, a process that will unfold behind closed doors.

Despite the setback, items seized during the raids continue to be held by the police. A further hearing is expected in 2027 to determine whether the material can ultimately be used as evidence. Mountbatten-Windsor is understood to oppose the force's bid to retain the evidence, setting the stage for a protracted legal battle over the seized documents and electronic devices.

Judge Hilliard offered a rationale for allowing the police to keep hold of the items, observing that there would be little purpose in returning property if it could simply be lawfully seized again under some other legal provision. That reasoning underscores the court's effort to balance the procedural failings of the warrants against the practical realities of an ongoing investigation.

In a statement issued after the hearing, a Thames Valley Police spokesperson insisted that the agreement leading to the quashing of the warrants related specifically to a court decision about their legal basis and did not constitute a judgment on the ongoing investigation. The spokesperson maintained that the force had ensured the court was presented with all necessary information and paperwork, following correct legal processes throughout.

The spokesperson added that the force accepts the position that the initial court's decision to issue warrants under the specific legislation used was incorrect and that they must therefore be legally quashed. Legal proceedings are continuing to determine how the seized material will be managed and whether police can lawfully retain it in support of their investigation.

The force also confirmed that its investigation into alleged misconduct in public office by a man in his sixties from Norfolk remains ongoing, and that officers continue to pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry to progress the case effectively and fairly. The age and location reference are standard police identifiers used to protect the identity of suspects in public statements.

The background to the arrest stretches back to documents published by the US Department of Justice, which raised suspicions that Mountbatten-Windsor had forwarded confidential information to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. At the time of the alleged conduct, around 2010, Mountbatten-Windsor was serving as a UK trade envoy. He has persistently denied any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein.

His lawyers have relied on a judicial review to challenge the conduct of the force's chief constable and the Central Criminal Court in the run-up to his arrest. The legal manoeuvring reflects the intense scrutiny surrounding the case and the high stakes involved for all parties.

Legal experts suggest that the police's decision to accept the warrants were unlawful may have been a pragmatic move to preserve the integrity of the broader investigation. By conceding the procedural error, the force may hope to avoid having the entire probe derailed on technical grounds, while still fighting to retain the material under alternative legal powers.

The next stage in the dispute will be a behind-closed-doors hearing examining whether police can still hold on to material taken from Mountbatten-Windsor's homes under different powers designed for situations like this. The outcome of that hearing could prove decisive in shaping what evidence, if any, is available to prosecutors as the investigation moves forward.

For now, the former prince remains under police investigation despite the ruling that the manner in which the search warrants were issued was unlawful. The case continues to raise difficult questions about the balance between robust investigation of alleged misconduct in public office and the legal protections afforded to suspects whose private and professional materials may be caught up in the process.