Andrew search warrants unlawful after police feared King’s ownership claim could delay entry

Thames Valley Police feared Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor or his lawyers might argue that officers needed separate permission to search his Sandringham home because it belonged to the King, according to accounts of court papers published on Friday. The concern was a scenario put forward before the search, not an account of Andrew trying to stop it. The warrants police obtained were later accepted as unlawful, although their investigation continues. [2] [3] [1]

A judge at the Central Criminal Court issued the warrants on 18 February. Officers searched Wood Farm on the Sandringham estate and Royal Lodge in Windsor the following day, seizing documents and electronic devices. Andrew was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office and released under investigation that day. The inquiry concerns allegations arising from his dealings with Jeffrey Epstein; Andrew denies wrongdoing in relation to Epstein. [1] [2] [4]

In a passage quoted by the Press Association from papers filed by Andrew’s lawyers, police said he or his legal team might claim the Sandringham property belonged to “someone else (the King)” and that separate legal permission was needed. Officers argued that seeking it could delay the search and risk the loss of evidence. Andrew’s lawyers disputed the police’s expectation that he would not co-operate, saying officers had not asked him or his legal team for access beforehand. [3]

The later ruling turned on a different issue. The warrants were issued under section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which required the issuing judge to have reasonable grounds for believing the material sought did not include legally privileged or certain confidential material. Police accepted that the judge could not properly have been satisfied of that condition. The High Court said this made the warrants, searches and seizures unlawful; it did not need to decide Andrew’s four other grounds of challenge.