Thames Valley Police has accepted that the warrants used to search the homes of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor at the time of his arrest in February were unlawful, the High Court has been informed. Despite this ruling, the criminal investigation into Mountbatten-Windsor remains ongoing.
Mountbatten-Windsor, who consistently denies any wrongdoing, was arrested by police on 19 February on suspicion of misconduct in public office. Following his arrest, he initiated a legal challenge contesting the legality of the search warrants used to access his properties.
The force stated that it accepted "the initial court's decision to issue warrants under the specific piece of legislation used was incorrect" prior to the searches of the properties.
During proceedings at the High Court on Thursday, Mr Justice Hilliard confirmed that both Mountbatten-Windsor and the police had agreed that the search warrants were unlawful. However, he added a crucial clarification: "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."
Mountbatten-Windsor is currently opposing the police's bid to retain the evidence seized during the searches, a matter which is expected to be addressed in a further hearing scheduled for 2027.
The judicial review was launched by Mountbatten-Windsor’s legal team to challenge the actions of the force's chief constable and the Central Criminal Court in the period leading up to his arrest.
His arrest followed the publication of documents by the US Department of Justice, which raised suspicions that he had forwarded confidential information to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in 2010, when Mountbatten-Windsor served as a UK trade envoy. He has consistently denied any connection to Epstein's criminal activities or any wrongdoing.
The High Court heard on Thursday that during the raids earlier this year, Thames Valley Police seized various items, including documents and electronic devices, from Mountbatten-Windsor's homes.
Thames Valley Police’s position, as presented to the court, was that they had applied for search warrants under both section eight and section nine of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) at a hearing before the Central Criminal Court the day before the searches were conducted. That court determined that only section eight search warrants were required and granted them on that basis. However, subsequent legal scrutiny has established that the warrants should have been issued under section nine of the Act.
Mr Justice Hilliard provided an explanation on Thursday regarding the police's ability to retain the items that had been seized. He stated: "There would be little point in handing property back if it could then simply be lawfully seized under some other provision."
A spokesperson for Thames Valley Police issued a statement: "The agreement that led to the quashing of the warrants relates specifically to a decision made by the court regarding the legal basis for these and is not a judgement on our ongoing investigation."
The spokesperson continued: "We ensured the court was presented with all the necessary information and paperwork to inform their decision, following the correct legal processes throughout. We accept the position 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 force clarified that "Legal proceedings are currently ongoing to decide how material seized during the searches will be managed and whether we can lawfully retain it in support of our ongoing investigation."
Thames Valley Police confirmed that its "investigation into alleged misconduct in public office by a man in his 60s from Norfolk remains ongoing, and we continue to pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry to effectively and fairly progress this investigation."
The next phase in this legal dispute will involve a behind-closed-doors hearing. This hearing will determine whether the police are legally permitted to retain material seized from Mountbatten-Windsor's homes by exercising alternative powers designed for such situations.
The error that led to Thames Valley Police accepting the unlawfulness of the search warrants pertains specifically to the particular power the judge permitted the force to use when its officers raided the properties.
Strict legal safeguards are in place to prevent police from automatically seizing sensitive material during searches without carefully considering the necessity beforehand. This sensitive material can include, for example, advice exchanged with a suspect's lawyer, or documents that do not legitimately belong to the suspect, such as confidential work-related papers from an employer.
In practice, if police encounter such protected material during a search, the standard procedure dictates that it should be returned rather than used in the investigation. The category of search warrant initially granted by the court in this instance, under Section 8, did not adequately account for the possibility of such protected material being seized.
However, legal provisions do exist that allow police to seize or potentially retain such material, even in cases of an initial error, provided they meet additional specified criteria. Thames Valley Police must now convince a judge that the material in question is likely to be of "substantial value" to their ongoing investigation into Mountbatten-Windsor, and ultimately, constitutes potential evidence to be presented in court.
Therefore, while the force has conceded that the original search warrant was unlawful, a judge will be required to decide whether this alternative search power, accompanied by its supplementary safeguards, justifies the police's continued retention and use of the material.
