A High Court judge in London has ruled that search warrants used by Thames Valley Police during raids on Prince Andrew’s homes in February were unlawful, following a legal challenge by the former royal. The decision was confirmed in a hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice on Thursday, where Mr Justice Nicholas Hilliard stated that Thames Valley Police had conceded the warrants were issued incorrectly under the specific legislation used.
Police confirm unlawful warrants but vow to continue investigation
Thames Valley Police confirmed in a statement that they accepted the warrants were unlawful and would be legally quashed. However, the force emphasized that the ruling does not invalidate the broader investigation into Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, who was arrested on February 19, 2026—his 66th birthday—on suspicion of misconduct in public office. The investigation was sparked by documents disclosed in the Jeffrey Epstein files, which raised questions about the former prince’s conduct during his tenure as a UK trade envoy from 2001 to 2011.
Key legal and procedural details
The High Court hearing centered on whether the seized materials fell under ‘special procedure’ material, which includes documents obtained through the former prince’s paid or unpaid duties and may be legally privileged. Mr Justice Hilliard noted that while the warrants were quashed, this did not mean the entire investigation was unlawful. He stated: ‘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.’
Background to the raids and legal challenge
The police searches of Wood Farm in Sandringham and Royal Lodge in Windsor lasted several days and involved the seizure of property. The former prince, who was stripped of his royal titles in 2025, has not been charged with any offense and has maintained his innocence throughout. His legal team argued that the warrants were improperly granted by a judge at the Old Bailey, leading to the High Court challenge.
Ongoing investigation and potential next steps
Thames Valley Police have indicated they will reapply to retain the seized materials under different legal provisions. The investigation remains active, with authorities stating they are considering additional matters beyond the initial allegations related to Epstein. The former prince did not attend Thursday’s hearing, and his legal representatives described the ruling as a preliminary step in a broader legal battle over the admissibility of the seized evidence.
Royal family response and financial implications
King Charles III has previously withdrawn Prince Andrew’s royal titles and restricted his access to public funds, though the former prince continues to receive a stipend from the monarch’s private finances. Buckingham Palace has made clear that these funds cannot be used to challenge the search warrants, adding financial constraints to the legal proceedings.