Thames Valley Police has formally accepted that the search warrants utilized by its officers to raid the Norfolk and Berkshire residences of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor earlier this year were unlawful, the High Court has been told. The admission represents a significant development in the ongoing legal dispute surrounding the criminal investigation into the former prince, raising critical questions about the procedural integrity of the police operation and the decisions made by the authorizing court prior to the raids.
According to representations made during a High Court hearing, the police force acknowledged that the initial court’s decision to grant the search warrants under the specific legislative provisions chosen was legally incorrect. The searches in question were executed on February 19 at the properties of Mountbatten-Windsor, following his arrest by Thames Valley Police on suspicion of misconduct in public office. Despite the admission of unlawfulness regarding the entry and search of the properties, the criminal investigation remains active, and the items seized during the operation will not immediately be returned.
The legal representative for Thames Valley Police confirmed to the court that the force now accepts the warrants should not have been issued under the statutory framework that was ultimately utilized. This admission comes in response to a judicial review action brought by Mountbatten-Windsor’s legal team, which challenged the administrative and procedural decisions of both the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police and the Central Criminal Court, where the warrants were originally authorized.
The dispute at the heart of the High Court hearing centers on the precise application of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, commonly referred to as PACE. This piece of legislation governs the powers of police officers in England and Wales to search premises and seize evidence, balancing the requirements of law enforcement against the fundamental rights of individuals to privacy and the protection of sensitive material. Under PACE, different sections dictate the requirements and safeguards necessary for obtaining search warrants, depending on the nature of the material being sought.
The court heard that on the day prior to the searches, representatives from Thames Valley Police attended a hearing at the Central Criminal Court, also known as the Old Bailey, to apply for search warrants. The police force’s position was that they had sought authorization under both Section 8 and Section 9 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. These two sections serve distinct legal functions and carry different thresholds of judicial scrutiny.
