Police feared royal intervention could block searches of Andrew’s homes
Thames Valley Police sought search warrants for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s homes because they feared he or his lawyers could deny officers access, arguing the properties belonged to the King. Officers told a judge that delays in seeking Buckingham Palace’s permission could risk losing evidence and damage public confidence in the investigation.
The newly released documents show that a senior officer described Andrew as a suspect in serious offences and said items in his possession could be significant to the inquiry into his dealings with Jeffrey Epstein. A High Court ruling found the February raids unlawful after Andrew challenged them, while police are seeking permission to keep seized documents and devices. Andrew was arrested in February and questioned for nearly 12 hours on suspicion of misconduct in public office.
- Police feared access to Andrew’s homes could be blocked without warrants.
- A High Court ruling found the February searches unlawful.
- Police are seeking to retain seized documents and devices.
New here? Start with this
Thames Valley Police investigate Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s links with Jeffrey Epstein, a US financier who was convicted of sex offences and later died in prison. The inquiry concerns whether Andrew, who held public roles as a member of the Royal Family, may have committed misconduct in public office.
The police sought court warrants to search homes associated with Andrew, which they said could contain material relevant to the inquiry. The properties’ connection to the King raised questions about who could grant access and how police investigations involving the Royal Family should proceed.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Police could reasonably argue that suspected serious offences and the risk of evidence being lost justified seeking warrants promptly, especially if access might be disputed or delayed. Acting through the courts could also protect the investigation’s credibility by showing that searches were authorised independently rather than dependent on royal permission.
The case against
Andrew could reasonably argue that searches of homes associated with the King required careful attention to ownership, access rights and legal process, and that urgency alone did not justify bypassing those considerations. The High Court’s finding that the raids were unlawful supports concern that police must respect those limits, even when investigating serious allegations.
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Daily Mail as “Police feared King could step in to halt raid on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s homes, legal documents reveal”.