Warrants used to search Andrew's homes were unlawful, court says

Thames Valley Police has accepted warrants it used to search Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's homes at the time of his arrest in February were unlawful, the High Court has heard.

Following Thursday's ruling items seized in the raids will continue to be held by the police until a hearing in 2027, and the criminal investigation into Mountbatten-Windsor is ongoing.

The former prince, who denies any wrongdoing, was arrested by police on 19 February on suspicion of misconduct in public office, and has since launched a challenge over the legality of the search warrants.

The force said it accepted that the "initial court's decision to issue warrants under the specific piece of legislation used was incorrect" before they searched the properties.

On Thursday at the High Court, Judge Mr Justice Hilliard said that an agreement had been reached between Mountbatten-Windsor and the police that the search warrants had been unlawful.

However, he added: "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's lawyers have used a judicial review to challenge the actions of the force's chief constable and the Central Criminal Court in the build-up to his arrest.

His arrest arose after the US Department of Justice published documents which suggested he had forwarded confidential information to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein when Mountbatten-Windsor was a UK trade envoy in 2010.

He has consistently denied any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein.

The court heard on Thursday that Thames Valley Police seized documents and electronic devices when they raided Mountbatten-Windsor's homes earlier this year.

Thames Valley Police's position was that they had applied for search warrants under section eight and nine of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 at a hearing at the Central Criminal Court the day before the search.

That court determined that only section eight search warrants were needed and they were granted on that basis - but subsequently, a legal challenge has established that the court should have issued them under the section nine.

The judge explained on Thursday why the police could keep hold of the former prince's property.

He said that "someone who is in possession of property as a result of an unlawful search... can still retain the property if it would be lawful to seize the property under some other provision once it was returned to the owner".

The judge added: "There would be little point in handing property back if it could then simply be lawfully seized under some other provision."