Police accept Andrew search warrants were unlawful, court hears

Police concede legal flaw in Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor search warrants

Ninoda.com – Thames Valley Police has acknowledged that warrants used to search the homes of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor in February were issued on an unlawful legal basis, the High Court has been told.

The concession concerns the process used to authorise searches of properties in Norfolk and Berkshire on 19 February. It does not bring the police investigation to an end, and officers are continuing to examine allegations of misconduct in public office.

Andrew, who was formerly known as Prince Andrew, was arrested by Thames Valley Police in connection with that inquiry. He denies wrongdoing. The force has said that its investigation into alleged misconduct by a Norfolk man in his 60s remains active and that it is following reasonable lines of inquiry.

Dispute centres on the legal route for the warrants

The searches resulted in police taking documents and electronic devices from Andrew’s homes. His legal team has brought a judicial review challenging actions by Thames Valley Police’s chief constable and the Central Criminal Court, including the validity of the warrants that permitted the searches.

Police had sought authority under sections 8 and 9 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. At a hearing at the Central Criminal Court on the day before the searches, it was determined that section 8 warrants alone were required, and those warrants were granted.

However, a later legal challenge established that section 9 was the appropriate provision. Thames Valley Police has accepted that the original decision to issue warrants under the legal basis selected by the court was incorrect. The warrants must therefore be quashed.

“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.”

Police said they had supplied the court with the information and paperwork needed for its decision and had followed the required process. Even so, the force accepted that the warrants could not stand once the legal error had been identified.

“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.”

Seized material remains subject to legal proceedings

The judicial review also raises questions about material removed during the searches. For now, the documents and devices taken by investigators will remain in police custody while the legal challenge continues.

The issue is not simply whether items were recovered during the raids, but whether they may lawfully be retained and used in the continuing inquiry. Further proceedings are expected to determine how that material should be handled and whether it can support the investigation.

“Legal proceedings are currently ongoing to decide how material seized during the searches will be managed and whether we can lawfully retain it in support of our ongoing investigation.”

The conditions linked to the warrants were also examined by the court. There needed to be reasonable grounds to believe that documents used in business, or in paid or unpaid roles where a duty of confidence had been given, should not be seized. Thames Valley Police now accepts that the judge who approved the warrants could not have been certain that this condition had been met.

The ruling on the warrants is an important procedural development, but it should not be confused with a decision on the underlying allegation. A warrant can be invalidated because the wrong statutory mechanism was used without deciding whether the allegation being investigated is proven. The separate criminal investigation remains unresolved.

Inquiry followed publication of US documents

Andrew’s arrest in February followed the publication by the US Department of Justice of documents that suggested he had passed confidential information to Jeffrey Epstein while serving as the UK’s trade envoy in 2010. Epstein was a convicted sex offender.

Andrew has repeatedly denied wrongdoing connected to Epstein. He also denies the allegation of misconduct in public office that forms the basis of the Thames Valley Police inquiry.

The case now has two connected but distinct tracks. Investigators are pursuing the substantive allegation, while the High Court proceedings focus on whether authorities acted within the law when obtaining and executing the search warrants. The outcome of the dispute over seized material could affect what evidence, if any, police are able to retain as the inquiry progresses.

Thames Valley Police said it remained committed to progressing the investigation effectively and fairly. No conclusion has been reached on the allegation, and the legal arguments over the searches and the retained material are continuing.