High Court Rules Search Warrants Used at Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's Homes Were Unlawful, but Investigation Continues

Thames Valley Police has acknowledged that the search warrants used to raid properties belonging to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor earlier this year were unlawful, the High Court was told on Thursday. The force accepted that the initial court decision to issue the warrants under a specific piece of legislation was incorrect, marking a significant development in the legal battle surrounding the former prince's arrest.

The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Hilliard, means the warrants have been formally quashed. However, the judge made clear that this does not signal the end of the criminal investigation into Mountbatten-Windsor, nor does it invalidate the entire probe. "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," he stated during the hearing.

Mountbatten-Windsor, who has consistently denied any wrongdoing, was arrested on 19 February on suspicion of misconduct in public office. Following his arrest, his legal team launched a judicial review challenging the legality of the search warrants used by Thames Valley Police to search his homes. The former prince remains under police investigation despite the court's ruling on the warrants.

The controversy centres on the specific legal mechanism police employed when applying for the search warrants. Thames Valley Police had applied for warrants under sections eight and nine of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 at a hearing at the Central Criminal Court the day before the search was conducted. The court determined that only section eight warrants were necessary and granted them on that basis. However, subsequent legal analysis established that the court should have issued the warrants under section nine instead.

The distinction between these two sections is legally significant. Section nine warrants contain stricter safeguards designed to protect sensitive material, such as legal advice from a suspect's lawyer or confidential work-related documents that may not actually belong to the individual being investigated. The category of warrant granted in this instance did not account for the possibility that such protected material might be seized during the search, an oversight that formed the basis of Mountbatten-Windsor's legal challenge.

During the raids on his homes earlier this year, Thames Valley Police seized documents and electronic devices. Those items remain in police custody as the legal wrangle over their fate continues. Mountbatten-Windsor opposes the force's bid to retain the evidence, and a further hearing is expected in 2027 to determine whether the material can be used as part of the ongoing investigation.

Mr Justice Hilliard explained why police could retain the seized items despite the warrants being quashed. "There would be little point in handing property back if it could then simply be lawfully seized under some other provision," he noted, suggesting that alternative legal powers might permit the force to hold onto the material. The next stage of the dispute will involve a behind-closed-doors hearing to assess whether police can lawfully retain the seized material under different legal provisions designed for such situations.

Legal experts note that police are not automatically barred from seizing sensitive material if they inadvertently encounter it during a search. Under certain circumstances, officers can seize or potentially retain such material if they satisfy additional legal tests. Thames Valley Police must now convince a judge that the material is likely to be of substantial value to their investigation in order to keep it.

A spokesperson for Thames Valley Police addressed the ruling, stating: "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 force maintained that it had presented the court with all necessary information and followed correct legal processes throughout the application.

The spokesperson added: "We accept the position that the initial court's decision to issue warrants under the specific piece of legislation used was incorrect and therefore these must be legally quashed." The force confirmed that legal proceedings are ongoing to determine how the seized material will be managed and whether it can be lawfully retained in support of the continuing investigation.

The background to the investigation stems from 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, Mountbatten-Windsor was serving as a UK trade envoy in 2010. He has consistently denied any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein.

Thames Valley Police stated its investigation into alleged misconduct in public office by a man in his 60s from Norfolk remains ongoing. "We continue to pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry to effectively and fairly progress this investigation," the force said. The coming months will see further legal arguments over the seized material, with the 2027 hearing set to determine whether the evidence gathered during the contested searches can ultimately be utilised.