Andrew's homes were searched unlawfully, but police keep what they seized

Thames Valley Police accepted at a High Court hearing on Thursday 8 October 2026 that the search warrants used on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's homes at the time of his February arrest were unlawful. Mr Justice Hilliard said Mountbatten-Windsor and the police had agreed the warrants were unlawful, and the force accepted that the initial court's decision to issue warrants under the specific legislation used was incorrect.

The ruling quashes the warrants. It does not return the seized material. Items taken in the searches remain in police hands, and a further hearing in 2027 will decide whether that material can be used as evidence.

Two properties were searched: Mountbatten-Windsor's former residence at Royal Lodge in Windsor and another property on the king's Sandringham Estate. He was arrested on 19 February on suspicion of misconduct in public office over accusations that he shared confidential information with Jeffrey Epstein. He denies any wrongdoing and the criminal investigation is ongoing.

Mr Justice Hilliard was explicit about the limits of the ruling. The fact that the search warrants were quashed, he said, does not bring the investigation to an end or mean the whole of the investigation was unlawful. Material collected might ultimately be retained by police.

That distinction matters. The warrants were found to be procedurally flawed, but the investigation they served continues. The central question — whether the seized material can ever be used as evidence — remains unresolved until 2027.

This is a procedural setback for Thames Valley Police, not a vindication for Mountbatten-Windsor. The force accepted the warrants were unlawful. The court quashed them. But the material stays with police, the investigation proceeds, and the evidentiary fight is deferred.

What the 2027 hearing will decide is whether a procedural error in obtaining a warrant disqualifies the evidence gathered under it. That question is not answered yet. Until it is, the practical effect of Thursday's ruling is narrower than the word "unlawful" might suggest: the warrants are gone, but the investigation and the material remain.

- https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr1exlvpzylvo - https://www.aol.com/articles/police-accept-andrew-search-warrants-133306000.html - https://au.news.yahoo.com/police-accept-andrew-search-warrants-133306217.html - https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/08/world/europe/prince-andrew-search-warrants-police-uk.html