Andrew Goes to Court Over Search Warrant, Before the Arrest Could Even Begin

Andrew Mountbatten Windsor has launched a legal challenge against Thames Valley Police over the search warrant used shortly before his arrest in February, marking his first major public legal push back against the investigation. The former Prince Andrew was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office following information that emerged from files relating to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in the United States. Mountbatten Windsor lawyer are challenging the warrants used by police to search properties in Sandringham and at Royal Lodge in Windsor. The legal action was first reported by The Telegraph. Thames Valley Police confirmed that it is involved in ongoing legal proceedings concerning warrants previously obtained from the Central Criminal Court, but declined to comment further while the matter remains before the court. Mountbatten Windsor, who lost his royal title and the title of Duke of York following controversy surrounding his link to Epstein, is seeking a judicial review of the legality of the search warrant. A court hearing is due to begin on Thursday afternoon, initially in private. The judge is expected to first consider a police request to keep some documents confidential. The warrants were issued by a judge at the Central Criminal Court on February 18, one day before Mountbatten Windsor was arrested. His legal challenge names both the chief constable of Thames Valley Police and the Central Criminal Court. However, even if the former prince succeeds in having the warrants quashed, that would not automatically mean that material seized during the searches would have to be returned. Nick Vamos, a criminal lawyer at Peters & Peters and former head of special crime at the Crown Prosecution Service, said challenges over search warrants were not unusual. He explained that in some circumstances, police could seek permission from the Crown Court to retain material obtained during a search or seize it again if there were sufficient ground. A more fundamental problem with how the warrants were granted would potentially be required before police were forced to return material seized during the searche. Police searched Mountbatten-Windsor’s property at Marsh Farm in Sandringham and his former home, Royal Lodge, on the Windsor estate for several days following his arrest. The arrest took place on his 66th birthday and came after a series of revelations linked to the Epstein files released by the US Department of Justice. Among the material were email that appeared to show Mountbatten-Windsor sharing official document with Epstein and others during his time as the UK trade envoy. The revelations added to existing scrutiny over his relationship with Epstein. Mountbatten Windsor had already been stripped of his royal titles by King Charles after evidence emerged that he had continued his association with Epstein beyond the point when he had publicly indicated that the relationship had ended. Following his arrest, Mountbatten-Windsor was taken to Aylsham police station and later released under investigation. Images of his departure showed him appearing exhausted as he left the station. The legal challenge against the search warrants represent the first significant public legal response from the former prince since the investigation intensified. His loss of royal titles, residence and public status has also been accompanied by charities and businesses distancing themselve from him. Thames Valley Police has said its investigation into Mountbatten Windsor remains on going. The force has previously stated that it is working with the United States Department of Justice to obtain further information that could be relevant to the investigation. Detective have also indicated that allegation of sexual misconduct could potentially form part of the wider inquiry into suspected misconduct in public office. The court decision on the validity of the warrant could therefore become an important development in the ongoing investigation, although a successful challenge would not necessarily bring the police inquiry to an end.