High Court ruling leaves investigation into Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor continuing
Constantvpn.com – Police searches of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s homes were carried out under warrants that have now been ruled unlawful, but the decision does not end the criminal investigation into him or require officers to immediately return items seized during the raids.
Thames Valley Police accepted at the High Court that the legal basis used when the warrants were granted was incorrect. The searches took place around the time Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested in February, when officers took documents and electronic devices from his properties.
Mountbatten-Windsor, who has denied wrongdoing, was detained on 19 February on suspicion of misconduct in public office. He has challenged the legality of the searches through judicial review proceedings against the force’s chief constable and the Central Criminal Court.
Warrants quashed after legal challenge
At a High Court hearing on Thursday, Mr Justice Hilliard said the police and Mountbatten-Windsor had reached agreement that the warrants should be quashed. The dispute centred on the statutory provisions used to obtain permission for the searches.
Police had sought authority under sections eight and nine of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. At a hearing before the Central Criminal Court on the day before the searches, it was decided that section eight warrants alone were sufficient. Those warrants were then issued.
The subsequent court challenge established that section nine was the appropriate legal route. Thames Valley Police accepted that the original judicial decision to issue warrants under the legislation relied upon had been wrong.
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.
The judge’s observation draws an important distinction between the validity of a search warrant and the wider inquiry. The ruling addresses the legal authority used for the searches; it does not determine whether the allegations being investigated are proven, nor does it automatically invalidate every other action taken by police.
Seized material will remain with police for now
Although the warrants have been set aside, material collected during the searches will remain in police possession pending a further hearing in 2027. That future stage of the case is expected to consider how the seized items should be handled and whether police may retain them lawfully while their investigation continues.
Mr Justice Hilliard explained that property obtained through an unlawful search may still be kept in certain circumstances if there is another lawful power under which it could be seized after being returned.
Someone who is in possession of property as a result of an unlawful search… can still retain the property if it would be lawful to seize the property under some other provision once it was returned to the owner.
There would be little point in handing property back if it could then simply be lawfully seized under some other provision.
The practical effect is that Mountbatten-Windsor does not yet regain the devices and paperwork taken during the raids. The court will later decide whether the legal conditions for continued retention have been met.
Investigation concerns alleged misconduct in public office
The arrest followed publication by the US Department of Justice of documents suggesting that Mountbatten-Windsor had passed confidential information to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein while serving as a UK trade envoy in 2010. Mountbatten-Windsor has repeatedly denied any improper conduct connected with Epstein.
Police have described the live inquiry as one into alleged misconduct in public office involving a man in his 60s from Norfolk. No finding of guilt has been made, and the investigation remains at the evidence-gathering stage.
In a statement, Thames Valley Police said the agreement to quash the warrants concerned the court’s choice of legal foundation and was not an assessment of the force’s wider investigation.
We ensured the court was presented with all the necessary information and paperwork to inform their decision, following the correct legal processes throughout.
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 said litigation was continuing over the management of the seized material and whether it could legally be kept to support the inquiry. It added that officers were still following reasonable lines of enquiry in an effort to progress the case fairly and effectively.
The ruling therefore represents a significant procedural development, rather than a conclusion to the allegations. It confirms that the searches were authorised through the wrong statutory mechanism, while leaving unresolved the separate questions of what may happen to the evidence collected and whether the investigation will lead to further action.
Related Reading
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Warrants used to search Andrew s homes?
Warrants used to search Andrew s homes is the main topic of this guide. The article explains the context, practical details, and next steps readers should understand.
Why does Warrants used to search Andrew s homes matter?
Warrants used to search Andrew s homes matters because readers are looking for a useful answer, not just a short summary. Good content should match search intent and help them decide what to do next.