Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has successfully challenged the legality of search warrants used by Thames Valley Police to search two properties connected to him earlier this year.
The High Court heard that an agreement had been reached between Andrew and the police that the warrants used to search Wood Farm in Sandringham and Royal Lodge in Windsor were unlawful.
Mr Justice Hilliard formally quashed the warrants, although the ruling does not bring the police investigation to an end.
Police Investigation Remains Active
The court stressed that the decision concerned the legal basis on which the warrants were issued rather than the wider investigation into Andrew.
Mr Justice Hilliard said the quashing of the warrants did not mean that the investigation itself was unlawful or had to stop.
Thames Valley Police has confirmed that its investigation into alleged misconduct in public office by a man in his 60s from Norfolk remains ongoing.
Andrew has not been charged with any offence in connection with the investigation.
Search Warrants Were Issued in February
The searches took place after Andrew was arrested on February 19, his 66th birthday.
He was subsequently held for almost 12 hours before being released on police bail.
Officers carried out searches at Wood Farm in Norfolk and Royal Lodge in Berkshire. Police officers in plain clothes were seen at the properties during the operation, which attracted considerable public attention.
The searches had been authorised by a judge at the Old Bailey under provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
Legal Dispute Focused on Seized Material
Andrew’s legal challenge centred on documents and other material that could potentially fall within the category of “special procedure” material.
The court heard that some of the material might have been obtained by Andrew in connection with paid or unpaid duties and could therefore potentially be protected by legal privilege.
Thames Valley Police accepted that it could not establish that the material seized did not fall within that category.
As a result, the police accepted that the original judge could not properly have approved the warrants on the legal basis that was used.
Police Say the Warrants Were Issued Under the Wrong Provision
The legal issue centred on the legislation used to obtain the warrants.
Alan Payne KC, representing Thames Valley Police, told the court that the judge who granted the warrants had made an error.
Police sources maintained that officers had taken what they considered to be every reasonable step to provide the court with the necessary information and documentation when applying for the warrants.
The force said the warrants had been issued under Section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act when, given the nature of the material involved, Section 9 should have applied.
Police Applied to Keep Material Already Seized
Although the warrants have been quashed, the legal dispute over the material seized during the searches has not ended.
On June 4, Thames Valley Police applied for permission to retain the items under a separate legal provision.
The application will determine whether the police can lawfully continue holding the material and potentially use it in their investigation.
Mr Justice Hilliard is due to hear that application, known as a Section 59 application, next year.
The judge noted that simply returning the property would have limited practical effect if the police could subsequently obtain lawful authority to seize it under another provision.
Public Was Initially Kept Unaware of the Legal Challenge
The High Court also explained why details of Andrew’s challenge had not previously been made public.
According to Mr Justice Hilliard, Thames Valley Police conceded relatively soon after Andrew began his legal challenge that the warrants were unlawful.
Because the central issue had been accepted by the police, there was no need for a contested public hearing on whether the warrants themselves were lawful.
The warrants were formally quashed by the High Court on July 22.
Police Say Ruling Does Not Undermine Investigation
Thames Valley Police said the court’s decision related specifically to the legal basis used for the warrants and did not amount to a finding against the wider investigation.
The force said it accepted that the original court decision to issue the warrants under the particular legislation used was incorrect.
It also said separate proceedings were continuing over how the seized material should be handled and whether it could lawfully be retained.
Police added that investigators would continue to pursue what they described as reasonable lines of inquiry while seeking to progress the case fairly.
Andrew’s Wider Controversies Remain Separate
The legal development comes against the background of Andrew’s longstanding controversy over his association with the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
King Charles previously removed titles and privileges from his brother following sustained pressure over the relationship and renewed allegations concerning Andrew.
Andrew has strongly denied allegations made by Virginia Giuffre, who alleged that she was sexually abused by him after being trafficked by Epstein. Andrew has denied meeting her, despite reaching a multimillion-pound civil settlement with her in 2022 without admitting liability.
Giuffre died by suicide in April.
Investigation Now Moves Into Another Legal Stage
The High Court ruling therefore resolves one specific aspect of the case but leaves several questions outstanding.
The legality of the original search warrants has been settled after Thames Valley Police accepted that they should not have been issued on the basis used.
However, the police’s separate application concerning the seized material remains to be determined, while the underlying investigation continues.
The next stage of the legal proceedings will help establish whether investigators can retain the material obtained during the searches and what role, if any, it may play in the continuing investigation.
