Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has won a High Court ruling that police raids on his two homes were unlawful, even as investigators say their misconduct probe continues.
A London judge confirmed that Thames Valley Police conceded the search warrants used at his properties could not stand, and the High Court quashed them after the force accepted a significant legal error in how the warrants were sought and granted.
Daily Mail reporting described the outcome as a High Court win for the former prince over searches earlier this year at Wood Farm on the Sandringham estate in Norfolk and Royal Lodge in Windsor, Berkshire. The force still insists the wider inquiry is alive.
Mr Justice Hilliard told the Royal Courts of Justice that both sides had reached an agreement on the core point. Andrew did not attend the Thursday hearing.
"agreement was reached between the claimant and Thames Valley Police that the search warrants were unlawful"
The ruling does not close the case. Police arrested Andrew on February 19, his 66th birthday, on suspicion of misconduct in public office, held him nearly 12 hours, and released him on bail without charge. Investigators say they are still pursuing the matter.
Thames Valley Police obtained approval for the searches, then moved on the two homes. Plain-clothes officers arrived at Wood Farm. The Royal Lodge search ran for several days. An Old Bailey judge had granted the warrants in the first place.
Andrew’s legal team challenged the legality of those warrants. The fight centered on material that may have counted as “special procedure” or legally privileged papers tied to paid or unpaid duties. Shortly after the challenge began, the force conceded the searches were unlawful. There was no public hearing at that stage.
Alan Payne King’s Counsel, appearing for Thames Valley Police, put the failure in blunt terms before the court.
"The judge made an error in granting the warrants."
Police sources pointed to the wrong legal route, warrants pursued under Section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act rather than the Section 9 path suited to special procedure material. The force also said it had presented the court with the necessary information and followed process. Those two accounts sit side by side in the public record without a final referee beyond the quashing itself.
The New York Post reported Justice Nicholas Hilliard’s finding that the force made a significant error applying for the warrants, and that police accepted the initial court’s decision to issue them was incorrect and had to be quashed. Legal observers framed the win as an early move to treat the seizures as tainted if any trial ever comes.
Quashing the warrants does not automatically hand every seized item back with no further argument. Parliament built in a separate route, a Section 59 application, for police to seek retention when they claim a lawful basis to hold material anyway.
Thames Valley Police filed that retention bid on June 4. Mr Justice Hilliard will hear it next year. He made clear why the sequence matters.
"The basic facts are straightforward. A significant error was made in the application for and grant of the search warrants. Acknowledging that error is important. When warrants are quashed, Parliament has provided a procedure whereby the police may be able to retain the material if there is a legitimate basis for doing so. I will decide that question in due course."
He added that returning property would mean little if officers could simply seize it again under another power. And he rejected any claim that the whole inquiry died with the warrants.
"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"
On when police might finish their work, the judge offered a dry forecast: he suspected that point was “quite a way off.”
A Thames Valley Police spokesman tied the timeline to the court record. On July 22, the High Court quashed warrants that a spokesman said were granted on 18 February 2026 for the Norfolk and Berkshire properties, searched as part of an investigation into alleged misconduct in public office by a man in his 60s from Norfolk.
The spokesman stressed the narrow scope of what the force had conceded.
"The agreement that led to the quashing of the warrants relates specifically to a decision made by the court regarding the legal basis for these and is not a judgement on our ongoing investigation."
The same statement said legal proceedings continue over how seized material will be handled and whether officers can lawfully retain it. The force said it keeps pursuing reasonable lines of inquiry and would not offer further comment while those fights remain live.
In short, police lost the warrant battle, kept the investigation open, and parked the retention fight for another day in front of the same judge.
The searches sit against years of public controversy over Andrew’s ties to the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who died by suicide in April, alleged in a posthumous memoir that she was forced into sex with Andrew three times, including when she was 17 and during an orgy after Epstein trafficked her. Andrew has vehemently denied the allegations. In 2022 he paid millions to settle a civil sexual assault case. He is not charged in the present police matter.
King Charles previously stripped his brother of titles after sustained pressure over the Epstein relationship. Andrew said he would no longer use the Duke of York title. Police still describe their suspect in spare official language: a man in his 60s from Norfolk.
None of that history revises the High Court’s finding on the warrants. A bad application is still a bad application. Privileged or special-procedure material still demands the right legal gateway. British policing does not get a free pass because the target is famous, or infamous.
For a stretch, the public heard little. That changed after a Daily Mail journalist sought access to the legal papers last week. The request prompted the judge to list a hearing on the secrecy fight. Police then dropped their bid to keep the documents locked away.
Mr Justice Hilliard gave the parties 14 days to argue over redactions, including officer names, before more of the case file goes public later this month. Readers should soon see fuller papers on how the warrants were built, and where they failed.
The mechanics are ordinary even if the names are not. An Old Bailey judge signs warrants. Officers search. The target sues. The force concedes. A High Court judge records the error, quashes the warrants, and schedules the retention argument. Due process is supposed to work this way every time, not only when a former royal can hire King’s Counsel.
Evidence gathered under defective warrants now sits under a cloud. Police want to keep it through Section 59. Andrew’s side has already shown it will police the police on procedure. The misconduct investigation continues in parallel, with no charge filed and no finish line in sight.
Warrant power is a serious tool. When officers and courts mishandle it, the correction has to be public, fast, and real, titles and headlines notwithstanding.
