Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor wins High Court challenge over unlawful search warrants

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the former Duke of York, has won a High Court challenge over the search warrants used when Thames Valley Police searched his homes in February. The warrants were quashed after the force accepted they were unlawful. The ruling is a legal win for Andrew, but it does not end the police investigation into him.

Andrew was arrested on his 66th birthday in February on suspicion of misconduct in public office. The arrest followed allegations that he shared sensitive commercial or trade information with the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein while he was the UK's trade envoy. He has consistently denied any wrongdoing. No charges have been brought and he remains under investigation.

The police searched his home on the Sandringham estate and his former home, Royal Lodge in Windsor. Officers seized documents and electronic devices over several days. The search warrants had been obtained from the Central Criminal Court, also known as the Old Bailey, after an application by Thames Valley Police. Andrew's legal team challenged the lawfulness of those warrants, not his arrest itself, through a judicial review.

At the High Court, the judge found a significant error in the application for and granting of the warrants. The wrong legal basis was used. Police applied under section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 when the material they were likely to find, including confidential business documents, should have been covered by section 9. Section 8 is the standard search warrant route. Section 9 is used for special procedure material, such as legally privileged or confidential material. The judge said the mistake did not mean the whole investigation was unlawful or at an end. Thames Valley Police said the agreement to quash the warrants related only to the legal basis for them and was not a judgment on its ongoing investigation.

The force still holds the material seized during the searches. It has made a separate application to retain and use it, which Andrew opposes. A further High Court hearing, expected next year, will decide whether police can keep the evidence. If they fail, the material may be inadmissible in any future prosecution. If they succeed, the investigation can continue with the seized documents and devices.

Sources at Buckingham Palace said none of the King's private funds should be used to pay for Andrew's legal action. The King provides some private funding to his brother, but it has been made clear that this money should not fund the judicial review. Buckingham Palace declined to comment on the case.

Court documents seen by the BBC also showed police concerns at the time of the searches. A senior detective said Andrew or his legal team might argue that the Sandringham property belonged to the King and that separate legal permission was needed. The detective said obtaining consent in advance might not be quick enough and could frustrate the purpose of the search. Police also wanted to avoid any risk that evidence could be lost or destroyed.

The wider investigation is complex. Police still want the original Epstein documents from US authorities, which they have not yet obtained. The National Police Chiefs' Council, which coordinates work on the Epstein files, said the inquiry involves suspects, witnesses and potential victims and will take time. Andrew has always denied wrongdoing in relation to Jeffrey Epstein.

This is the first time a member of the royal family has challenged the lawfulness of criminal proceedings against them since the trial of Charles I in 1649, according to legal commentators. The ruling is a setback for Thames Valley Police, but the force says its investigation into alleged misconduct in public office continues.