Warrants in Mountbatten-Windsor Arrest Ruled Unlawful, but Inquiry Goes On

A High Court judge in London has ruled the search warrants behind the arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor were unlawful. Mr Justice Hilliard upheld his challenge against Thames Valley Police and the Central Criminal Court. The Guardian

The challenge tested how police applied for the powers and whether the court should have granted them. Thames Valley Police accepted it had used the wrong legal provision. The warrants had been issued by the Recorder of London at the Old Bailey on 18 February.

Police arrested Mountbatten-Windsor the next day, on his 66th birthday, on suspicion of misconduct in public office, an offence concerning serious abuse of a public role. Officers searched his residence on the Sandringham estate and his former home, Royal Lodge at Windsor, that same day. They seized documents and electronic devices.

The investigation follows information in the Jeffrey Epstein files. The allegation is that Mountbatten-Windsor shared sensitive information with Epstein while serving as Britain's trade envoy. He is the younger brother of King Charles and was formerly known as Prince Andrew. Financial Times

The fault turns on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Section eight covers standard warrants for relevant evidence. Section nine, with Schedule 1, needs a stricter judicial process with extra safeguards where officers may find legally privileged material, such as lawyer-client talks, or special procedure material, such as confidential medical or journalistic records. Like two doors with different locks, the judge said only the second door was lawful here because such material was expected.

The warrants are now quashed, but the investigation continues. Police have applied to keep the seized property, saying it could have been taken under a different legal power. Mountbatten-Windsor opposes that request, to be heard next year. Hilliard said quashing the warrants does not end the investigation or make the whole inquiry unlawful, and the force said its misconduct inquiry remains ongoing. The ruling is listed as "Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor -v- The Central Criminal Court and another," dated 8 October 2026, under the Administrative Court, High Court, King's Bench Division, as an Order. Judiciary.uk

The broader context here is procedural rather than substantive. The order does not decide whether the suspicion was well founded, and it does not automatically exclude what was seized. The retention hearing will test whether seizure could have been authorised correctly, and whether material must be returned, checked by independent counsel, or shielded from investigators to protect privilege. The question of misconduct in public office is untouched.