LONDON, United Kingdom — Search warrants used by police to raid properties linked to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor during an investigation connected to Jeffrey Epstein were unlawfully issued and must be quashed, a High Court judge has said.
Justice Nicholas Hilliard said Thames Valley Police had made a significant legal error when applying for the warrants used to search Andrew’s residence on the Sandringham Estate and his former home, Royal Lodge in Windsor.
The ruling on Thursday, October 8, 2026, does not end the criminal investigation into the former prince, who was arrested in February on suspicion of misconduct in public office and has not been charged.
Police said the inquiry remains active and that separate proceedings will determine whether investigators can retain material seized during the searches.
Police Accept Warrants Were Improperly Granted
Andrew’s lawyers had asked the High Court to invalidate the warrants after challenging the legal basis on which police obtained them.
Before Thursday’s hearing, Thames Valley Police accepted that the warrants had been issued under the wrong statutory provision.
“We accept the position that the initial court’s decision to issue warrants under the specific piece of legislation used was incorrect,” the force said.
Hilliard said the parties had agreed to quash the warrants.
Judge Mark Lucraft KC at the Central Criminal Court, commonly known as the Old Bailey, had originally authorised the warrants.
Andrew did not attend Thursday’s High Court hearing.
The ruling is a legal victory for the former Duke of York, but it does not find that the wider police investigation was unlawful or that the allegations against him are unfounded.
Police Seek to Keep Seized Material
A separate dispute now centres on evidence taken during the February searches.
Thames Valley Police said it was seeking legal authority to retain material it considers relevant to the investigation despite the warrants being quashed.
“Legal proceedings are currently ongoing to decide how material seized during the searches will be managed and whether we can lawfully retain it in support of our ongoing investigation,” the force said.
Hilliard said police were applying to keep the seized property and that Andrew was opposing the request.
That issue is not expected to be resolved until next year.
Police said they had returned only material considered unrelated to the investigation.
Legal experts said Andrew’s lawyers could also seek to prevent the use of evidence obtained through the searches in any future criminal proceedings.
Mark Stephens, a London lawyer not involved in the case, described the warrant challenge as an early stage in a potentially much larger legal battle over whether the evidence was properly obtained.
Andrew Was Arrested on His 66th Birthday
Andrew was arrested on February 19, his 66th birthday, on suspicion of misconduct in public office.
Police questioned him under caution for about 11 hours before releasing him under investigation.
He has not been charged.
The inquiry followed the release by the U.S. Justice Department of millions of pages of records relating to Epstein, the late financier and convicted sex offender.
Police began examining allegations that Andrew shared sensitive government information with Epstein while serving as Britain’s special representative for international trade and investment between 2001 and 2011.
Thames Valley Police has described the inquiry as lengthy and highly complex.
The force has also said investigators may consider matters beyond the initial allegations, including confidential information.
Andrew has denied wrongdoing in connection with Epstein and has previously said he regrets his association with him.
Investigation Continues Despite Court Ruling
Police stressed that Thursday’s decision concerned the legality of the warrants, not whether officers were entitled to investigate Andrew.
The inquiry remains open.
The distinction is significant because quashing a warrant does not automatically invalidate an investigation or require prosecutors to disregard all evidence gathered during it.
Courts can separately determine whether seized material may legally be retained or admitted as evidence.
Andrew’s arrest was the first in nearly four centuries involving a senior member of the British royal family.
Epstein Relationship Has Followed Andrew for Years
Andrew’s relationship with Epstein has damaged his public standing for more than a decade.
He stepped down from his role as Britain’s trade envoy in 2011 after questions intensified about the friendship.
In 2019, a widely criticised BBC interview about his relationship with Epstein led him to withdraw from public royal duties.
Virginia Giuffre later sued Andrew in the United States, alleging that Epstein trafficked her to have sex with the prince when she was 17.
Andrew denied her allegations.
He settled the civil case in 2022 without admitting liability.
King Charles III subsequently removed his remaining official royal roles and, in 2025, stripped him of his princely title and dukedom as controversy over his Epstein connections continued.
Buckingham Palace also made clear this week that Andrew was not to use money from the king’s private funds for his legal challenge against the police.
The immediate legal question now turns to the material seized from Sandringham and Royal Lodge.
