Thames Valley Police have formally accepted that the warrants used to search the residences of Andrew Mountbatten‑Windsor in February were issued incorrectly, a High Court hearing was told. The acknowledgement came as the judiciary examined the legal basis for the raids and considered whether material seized during the search can still be used in the continuing criminal inquiry into alleged misconduct in public office.
The former prince, who denies any wrongdoing, was taken into custody on 19 February 2026 on suspicion of misconduct in public office. Shortly after his arrest, his legal team mounted a judicial review challenging the legality of the search warrants. At a hearing on Thursday, Mr Justice Hilliard confirmed that both Mountbatten‑Windsor and the police agreed the warrants were unlawful, noting that the quashing of the warrants did not automatically terminate the investigation.
Police have indicated that the items taken from the properties remain in their custody. A further hearing scheduled for early 2027 will determine whether the seized documents and electronic devices can be lawfully retained as evidence. The investigation itself continues, focusing on allegations that Mountbatten‑Windsor forwarded confidential information to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein while serving as a UK trade envoy in 2010.
The legal dispute centres on the specific legislative provisions under which the warrants were sought. Thames Valley Police applied for search authority under sections 8 and 9 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 at a hearing before the Central Criminal Court one day prior to the raids. The court granted the warrants on the basis that only a section 8 warrant was required. Subsequent judicial scrutiny, however, revealed that the correct provision should have been section 9, which carries additional safeguards concerning the seizure of sensitive material such as legal advice or employer‑held documents.
Judge Hilliard explained the rationale for allowing the police to keep the seized items, stating: “There would be little point in handing property back if it could then simply be lawfully seized under some other provision.” He added that the fact the original warrants were unlawful did not render the entire investigation invalid, leaving open the possibility that the material could still be admissible under alternative legal powers.
A spokesperson for Thames Valley Police said the force accepts 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 statement emphasised that the agreement to quash the warrants was limited to the legal basis of the warrants themselves and did not constitute a judgment on the broader investigation. The force added that it “ensured the court was presented with all the necessary information and paperwork to inform their decision, following the correct legal processes throughout.”
The police now face the task of persuading a judge that the material seized is of “substantial value” to their inquiry and could serve as evidence in court. This requires demonstrating that the items meet the additional criteria set out for section 9 warrants, which are designed to protect against the indiscriminate seizure of privileged or unrelated material.
Legal analysts note that the case highlights the importance of precise statutory interpretation in law‑enforcement procedures. “The distinction between sections 8 and 9 is not merely technical; it carries significant implications for the rights of individuals and the integrity of investigations,” commented a criminal law professor. “When a warrant is found to be based on the wrong provision, it raises questions about the admissibility of any evidence obtained under that authority.”
Mountbatten‑Windsor’s legal team has pursued a judicial review targeting both the chief constable’s actions and the decisions of the Central Criminal Court that preceded the arrest. Their challenge argues that the procedural misstep undermines the legitimacy of the evidence collection process, a contention that will be central to the upcoming 2027 hearing.
The next stage of the dispute will be held in camera, where the police will argue for retention of the seized material under alternative powers. If the judge rules in favour of the prosecution, the evidence could be integrated into the case against Mountbatten‑Windsor. Should the ruling go the other way, the material may have to be returned, potentially limiting the investigative leads available to officers.
The ongoing investigation continues to explore allegations stemming from documents released by the US Department of Justice. Those documents suggest that Mountbatten‑Windsor may have shared confidential information with Epstein during his tenure as a trade envoy. Mountbatten‑Windsor has consistently denied any impropriety, maintaining that he did nothing wrong in his interactions with Epstein.
The case has drawn attention not only within the United Kingdom but also among international observers, given the high‑profile nature of the individual involved and the sensitive diplomatic context of the alleged offences. Royal correspondents note that while the legal proceedings are focused on criminal allegations, the reputational impact on the royal family cannot be ignored.
Legal practitioners anticipate that the outcome of the 2027 hearing will set a precedent for how courts balance law‑enforcement needs against individual protections, especially in cases involving senior public figures. The judgment may influence future police practices regarding warrant applications and the handling of seized material.
Unlawful Warrants Acknowledged
Thames Valley Police have formally recognised that the search warrants used to enter Andrew Mountbatten‑Windsor’s homes in February 2026 were issued under the wrong statutory provision. The force’s concession came during a High Court hearing where Mr Justice Hilliard confirmed that both parties agreed the warrants should be quashed. The police’s acceptance was limited to the legal basis of the warrants and did not constitute a judgment on the broader investigation.
Battle Over Seized Evidence
The items taken during the raids remain in police custody. A subsequent hearing slated for early 2027 will decide whether the seized documents, devices, and other materials can be lawfully retained and used as evidence. The judge will need to assess whether the material meets the criteria for “substantial value” to the ongoing inquiry into alleged misconduct in public office.
Ongoing Criminal Investigation
Despite the warrant ruling, the criminal investigation into Mountbatten‑Windsor continues unabated. Officers are pursuing “all reasonable lines of enquiry” to determine if any offences were committed, particularly in relation to the handling of confidential information while he served as a UK trade envoy. The investigation is supported by documents released by the US Department of Justice, which have raised suspicions about his interactions with Jeffrey Epstein in 2010.
Judicial Review and Future Proceedings
Mountbatten‑Windsor’s legal team has lodged a judicial review challenging the actions of Thames Valley Police’s chief constable and the Central Criminal Court’s decision to grant the warrants. The review argues that the procedural error compromises the legitimacy of the evidence collection. The upcoming 2027 hearing will be held behind closed doors, focusing on whether the police can retain the seized material under alternative legal powers.
Why it Matters
The case underscores the critical importance of strict adherence to statutory requirements when law‑enforcement agencies seek search authority. A misapplication of legal provisions can undermine the integrity of investigations and raise serious questions about the admissibility of evidence, especially in high‑profile matters involving public figures. The forthcoming judicial decision will likely shape how police forces approach warrant applications and evidence retention in future cases, setting a benchmark for balancing investigative needs with individual rights.
