Court documents reveal Thames Valley Police feared Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor would obstruct raids by claiming the King's permission was needed. The force has admitted the February search warrants were unlawful.
Thames Valley Police feared that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor would attempt to block searches at his properties by claiming officers must obtain permission from the King, according to legal documents revealed in High Court proceedings. The force has acknowledged that the search warrants used to raid Andrew’s residence on the Sandringham Estate and his former Windsor home, Royal Lodge, in February were unlawful.
Documents from the ongoing legal challenge show that detectives were concerned crucial material might be lost if they were forced to request clearance from Buckingham Palace before executing the searches. Investigators were looking to seize "paperwork, diaries, business records or other documentary evidence of AMW's time as Special Representative for Trade and Investment."
According to Andrew’s lawyers, police told the Old Bailey judge: "AMW or his legal team may seek to advance that the property belongs to someone else (the King) and that separate legal permission should be sought." The police further argued: "Obtaining such consent may not be expeditious and seeking to do so in advance may frustrate the nature and purpose of the search."
A Detective Chief Inspector, whose identity was not disclosed, stated in the documents: "My investigative objectives are to secure relevant evidence in a timely and secure fashion. Failure to do so risks loss of evidence and a consequent loss of public trust and confidence in the investigation."
Mr Justice Hilliard said last week that while Andrew and Thames Valley Police have reached an "agreement" that the warrants were unlawful, the police have since launched a bid to retain evidence gathered during the searches. Andrew opposes this bid, and a hearing to determine whether the police can keep the items will be held in private in 2027.
The judge noted that the blame for the legal error fell on both the police and the judge who granted the warrants. "The basic facts are straightforward. A significant error was made in the application for and grant of the search warrants under section eight," Mr Justice Hilliard said. Thames Valley Police had applied for warrants under sections eight and nine of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, but the court determined that only section eight warrants were needed, though they were later found to be issued under the wrong section.
The former Duke of York was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office on February 19, his 66th birthday, following allegations he shared sensitive information with Jeffrey Epstein during his time as the UK’s trade envoy. He was interviewed under caution before being released under investigation, and he denies wrongdoing.
Court documents cited by the police indicate that Andrew was considered a suspect "in a number of serious offences," including forwarding official reports to Jeffrey Epstein "within minutes of receiving them." The reports allegedly related to Andrew’s official trips as trade envoy to Singapore, Vietnam, China and Hong Kong in October 2010.
Police also argued it was a "matter of public record" that Andrew "has previously not engaged with other investigative strands relating to his alleged involvement with Jeffrey Epstein." Andrew’s lawyers denied the allegation, stating that Thames Valley Police never contacted the former Duke of York or his legal team to ask whether they would grant access to the residences "or any relevant evidence."
The disclosure of these internal police concerns highlights the complex legal and constitutional questions surrounding searches of royal properties. The admission that the warrants were unlawful, coupled with the ongoing dispute over evidence retention, means Andrew could remain in legal limbo for several more months before learning if he will be charged with an offence.
Sources
This article was drafted with AI assistance and checked against the sources above. Company claims are reported as claims. Cover image is AI-generated.
The day's checked news, by email
One short email a day with the top stories. Free, and you can unsubscribe in one click.
Or follow for the latest news:
No comments yet. Start the discussion.
Iran-backed Houthi rebels struck a military camp in southern Yemen with ballistic missiles, killing at least 53 recruits and wounding 200 others, according to local authorities.
Iran-backed Houthi rebels struck a Yemeni government military camp in Shabwa province with ballistic missiles, killing at least 53 soldiers and wounding 200 recruits.