Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has won a legal challenge against Thames Valley Police after the High Court ruled that search warrants used to raid his homes earlier this year were unlawful.
The former prince, who was stripped of his royal titles last year, was arrested on February 19 — his 66th birthday — on suspicion of misconduct in public office. The arrest followed revelations in the Epstein files that he allegedly shared sensitive government information with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein while serving as the UK’s trade envoy between 2001 and 2011.
Police searched his residence on the Sandringham estate and his former home, Royal Lodge, in Windsor Great Park, seizing documents and electronic devices.
The Legal Error
At a hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice on Thursday, Mr Justice Hilliard said an “agreement was reached between the claimant and Thames Valley Police that the search warrants were unlawful”.
The warrants were issued by the Old Bailey on February 18 under Section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. However, the judge found they should have been issued under Section 9, because the material sought included legally privileged documents and “special procedure material” — confidential records acquired through a trade, business, or public office.
Thames Valley Police accepted that “the initial court’s decision to issue warrants under the specific piece of legislation used was incorrect”.
The Investigation Continues
Despite the legal victory for Mountbatten-Windsor, the judge made clear that the ruling does not end the criminal investigation.
“The fact that the search warrants were quashed does not bring an investigation to an end, or mean that the whole of the investigation was unlawful,” Justice Hilliard said.
Thames Valley Police said its investigation into alleged misconduct in public office “remains ongoing, and we continue to pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry”. The force has applied to retain the seized material on the basis that it could have been lawfully obtained under a different statutory provision. That application will be heard next year, and Mountbatten-Windsor opposes it.
The Royal Fallout
King Charles III stripped his brother of his princely title last year as he sought to shield the royal family from the fallout over his links to Epstein. While Mountbatten-Windsor continues to receive a stipend from the King’s private funds, Buckingham Palace has made clear that those funds may not be used to fund his legal challenge.
It was the first time in nearly four centuries that a senior British royal was placed under arrest. Mountbatten-Windsor was questioned for 11 hours before being released under investigation — neither charged nor exonerated.
The Bottom Line
The High Court has ruled that search warrants used to raid Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s homes were unlawful because police applied under the wrong legislation. The former prince won his legal challenge, but the criminal investigation into his Epstein links continues. Police are seeking to retain the seized evidence. Mountbatten-Windsor has consistently denied wrongdoing.
My Opinion
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor won a legal battle on a technicality. The warrants were issued under the wrong section of the law. That is a procedural error, not a vindication, and the judge made that clear: the investigation continues, and the police can still apply to keep the evidence they seized.
But let us not lose sight of what this case is actually about. A former trade envoy — a man who represented British business interests around the world — is suspected of sharing sensitive government information with a convicted sex offender. The Epstein files revealed the extent of their relationship. And the response from the palace was to strip him of his titles and distance the monarchy from the scandal.
The legal system is working as it should. The police made a mistake. The court corrected it. The investigation continues. That is how the rule of law functions. But Mountbatten-Windsor should not mistake a procedural victory for exoneration. The evidence seized from his homes has not been returned. The investigation is not closed. And the question of what he told Jeffrey Epstein — and why — remains unanswered.
