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.
Section 8 of PACE allows a justice of the peace or a judge to issue a warrant to enter and search premises if there are reasonable grounds for believing that an indictable offense has been committed, and that there is material on the premises which is likely to be of substantial value to the investigation. However, Section 8 warrants are generally restricted to standard materials and cannot be used to obtain "special procedure material" or "excluded material," which receive much higher levels of legal protection under the law.
In contrast, Section 9 and Schedule 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 govern the acquisition of "special procedure material." This category of evidence includes confidential business records, personal records, or other sensitive documents that are held in the course of a trade, business, profession, or office. Because of the sensitive nature of such files, the law mandates a much stricter process. Instead of a standard search warrant, police must typically apply for a production order, which requires a hearing where the holder of the material has the opportunity to argue against its release. A search warrant under Section 9 is only granted under exceptional circumstances where a production order would be ineffective or compromised.
During the initial application hearing on February 18, the Central Criminal Court determined that only Section 8 search warrants were required for the operation, and subsequently granted them on that basis. Thames Valley Police officers acted upon these authorizations the following day, executing the raids on Mountbatten-Windsor’s homes in Norfolk and Berkshire. However, the subsequent legal challenge brought by Mountbatten-Windsor’s lawyers successfully established that the Central Criminal Court had erred in its determination. The legal challenge proved that the materials the police sought to seize fell under the legal definition of "special procedure material," meaning the court should have evaluated the application under the more stringent criteria of Section 9 rather than Section 8.
As a consequence of this legal miscategorization, the search warrants used to access the properties were deemed unlawful. The admission by Thames Valley Police that the initial court’s decision was incorrect underscores the complexity of applying procedural law in high-profile investigations where vast quantities of personal and professional documents are targeted.
Despite the admission that the entry and search of the homes were conducted under unlawful warrants, the physical items and digital data taken by officers during the raids will remain in the custody of Thames Valley Police for the time being. The court was informed that during the February 19 raids, police took possession of a significant volume of documents and electronic devices from both the Norfolk and Berkshire properties. The fate of these seized items remains unresolved, as Mountbatten-Windsor’s legal challenge over the retention and potential examination of this material continues through the judicial review process.
Under English law, even when a search warrant is found to have been obtained or executed unlawfully, the police do not automatically have to return the seized items immediately if they can justify their retention under other legal frameworks, or if the court decides that the interests of justice require the material to be preserved while the legal issues are sorted out. The ongoing judicial review will determine whether the force must return the seized documents and electronic devices, or if they will be permitted to retain them as part of their active criminal investigation.
The underlying criminal investigation into Mountbatten-Windsor began following his arrest in February. The arrest on suspicion of misconduct in public office was prompted by the publication of documents by the United States Department of Justice. These documents suggested that in 2010, while serving as a UK trade envoy, Mountbatten-Windsor had forwarded confidential information to Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender. Misconduct in public office is a serious common law offense in England and Wales, carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, and applies when a public officer willfully neglects to perform their duty or misconducts themselves to such a degree that it amounts to an abuse of the public’s trust.
Mountbatten-Windsor has consistently and vigorously denied any wrongdoing in relation to his association with Jeffrey Epstein, and he continues to deny all allegations of misconduct. His legal team has utilized the judicial review process to challenge the validity of the police’s actions from the outset of the physical search operation, arguing that the procedural failures compromised the legality of the entire search and seizure process.
The High Court’s review of the case brings to light the tension between active law enforcement investigations and the strict adherence to statutory safeguards designed to protect individuals from unlawful state intrusion. By launching a judicial review against both the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police and the Central Criminal Court, Mountbatten-Windsor’s legal representatives have sought to hold both the police force and the judiciary accountable for what they argue was a failure to apply the correct legal standards before authorizing the invasion of his private properties.
The admission by Thames Valley Police that the warrants were indeed unlawful represents a significant legal concession, though the practical impact on the broader criminal investigation remains to be seen. While the force has conceded the procedural error regarding the statutory basis of the warrants, the criminal inquiry itself is still ongoing. The High Court will continue to hear arguments concerning the seized materials as the judicial review progresses, with the legal teams of both sides disputing whether the documents and electronic devices can be utilized by investigators or if they must be returned to Mountbatten-Windsor due to the unlawful nature of the original search.
