Police accept Andrew search warrants were unlawful, court hears

Thames Valley Police has conceded that the search warrants used to raid two of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's properties earlier this year were unlawful, following a legal challenge brought by the former prince. At a High Court hearing on Thursday, October 8, 2026, Mr Justice Hilliard confirmed that an agreement had been reached between the claimant and the force to quash the court orders. The legal battle marks the first time a member of the royal family has challenged the lawfulness of criminal proceedings against them since the trial of Charles I in 1649.

The raids took place on February 19, 2026, when detectives searched Wood Farm on the King's private Sandringham estate in Norfolk and his former home, Royal Lodge, in Windsor Great Park. Andrew was arrested on the same day — his 66th birthday — on suspicion of misconduct in public office. The criminal inquiry stems from US Department of Justice documents released which suggested he forwarded confidential information to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein when Mountbatten-Windsor was a UK trade envoy in 2010. Andrew denies all wrongdoing and has not been charged.

Statutory Errors at the Old Bailey

The core of the legal dispute centers on the specific legislation used to obtain the search powers. Thames Valley Police applied for warrants under sections eight and nine of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 during a hearing at the Central Criminal Court on the day before the search. The Old Bailey judge determined that only section eight warrants were needed and they were granted on that basis, but subsequently, a legal challenge established that the court should have issued them under section nine.

Mr Justice Hilliard noted that the judge granting the warrants could not have been properly satisfied of the conditions. Thames Valley Police formally accepted that the initial court's decision to issue the warrants under the incorrect legislation was flawed. 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, a force spokesperson said, adding that investigators followed correct legal processes and presented all necessary paperwork.

Ongoing Inquiry and Evidence Retention Battles

Despite the quashing of the warrants, the criminal investigation remains active. Mr Justice Hilliard stressed that the fact that the search warrants were quashed does not bring an investigation to an end, or mean that the whole of the investigation was unlawful. During the searches, officers took possession of documentary material and electronic devices, which remain in police custody. Thames Valley Police has launched a bid to retain evidence gathered during the searches, which the judge said is opposed by Andrew, with a hearing to be held in private in 2027 to determine how the material will be managed.

The financial and institutional ramifications extend across the wider royal establishment. Late last year, the King stripped his brother of both his right to be a prince and his dukedom over his association with Epstein. While Andrew receives an annual stipend provided by the King from his private funds, a palace source said on Monday it has been made clear that these monies should not be used to fund the judicial review.

Chronology of the Case

1. 2010: Andrew serves as a UK trade envoy, the period during which he allegedly forwarded confidential information to Jeffrey Epstein.
2. February 18, 2026: An Old Bailey judge grants search warrants for Andrew's properties under sections eight and nine of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, though granted on the basis of section eight.
3. February 19, 2026: Police execute the raids at Royal Lodge and the Sandringham estate, arresting Andrew on his 66th birthday for suspected misconduct in public office; he is interviewed under caution and released under investigation.
4. February 24, 2026: Thames Valley Police confirm that their physical searches of the properties have concluded.
5. July 22, 2026: An agreement is formalised by the High Court to quash the search warrants after the police concede the statutory error.
6. October 8, 2026: Mr Justice Hilliard presides over the first public High Court hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, where the unlawful status of the warrants is formally confirmed.

What Affected Observers Can Monitor

For readers tracking the proceedings, several specific developments and legal milestones remain ahead:

• The 2027 Retention Hearing: Watch for the scheduling of the private court battle next year, which will decide whether Thames Valley Police can legally retain the documents and electronic devices seized during the quashed February raids.
• Bail and Charging Decisions: Monitor whether Thames Valley Police formally charges Andrew with misconduct in public office or alters his released-under-investigation status as they pursue remaining lines of inquiry.
• Document Redactions: Look for the release of further judicial review documents, which the force agreed to make public subject to certain information being redacted, such as the names of individual officers.

The legal proceedings will resume in private in 2027.