Thames Valley Police made a major procedural blunder, but they are not giving up their case. The force has admitted that the warrants used to raid the homes of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor in February were unlawful.
The admission came during a High Court hearing on Thursday. Even though the former prince won this round, his legal troubles are far from over. The criminal investigation into his actions continues. For now, detectives are holding onto the files and electronic devices they seized during the raids.
A Technical Mistake in the Raid
The issue boils down to a legal mix-up. Before the searches, police applied for warrants under sections eight and nine of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. However, the Central Criminal Court decided only section eight warrants were needed.
That was a mistake. Section eight warrants do not account for highly sensitive or legally protected documents, such as correspondence between a suspect and their lawyer. Because the wrong legal power was used, both the police and Mountbatten-Windsor’s lawyers agreed the warrants had to be thrown out.
Mr. Justice Hilliard confirmed the decision in court. But he made it clear that an administrative error would not stop the police. “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 said.
The Epstein Connection
The investigation itself stems from Mountbatten-Windsor’s past role as a UK trade envoy. Back in 2010, he allegedly forwarded confidential information to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The allegations surfaced after the US Department of Justice published documents detailing the link. Mountbatten-Windsor, who is in his 60s and lives in Norfolk, has consistently denied any wrongdoing.
He was arrested on February 19 on suspicion of misconduct in public office. Soon after, his legal team launched a judicial review to challenge the raids.
What Happens to the Seized Material?
A battle is now brewing over the evidence. Mountbatten-Windsor wants his belongings back. The police want to keep them. Under the law, officers can retain mistakenly seized items if they can prove they are of “substantial value” to the ongoing prosecution.
Justice Hilliard defended this logic. “There would be little point in handing property back if it could then simply be lawfully seized under some other provision,” he explained.
A spokesperson for Thames Valley Police emphasized that the warrant issue was a court decision, not a reflection on their investigation. The force stated they are still pursuing “all reasonable lines of enquiry.”
A private hearing will decide whether the police can keep the seized files under alternative legal powers. After that, the main legal dispute over the evidence is not expected to reach a full hearing until 2027.