The ruling

The High Court in London ruled on Thursday, 8 October, that the police searches of two properties linked to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor were unlawful. Mr Justice Nicholas Hilliard said an agreement had been reached between the former Duke of York and Thames Valley Police that the search warrants were unlawful. The judge found a "significant error" in the application for and grant of the warrants, which was enough to render the warrants, the searches and the material seized unlawful. Andrew did not attend the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice.

The warrants were issued by an Old Bailey judge on 18 February, the day before his arrest, and allowed officers to search his residence on the Sandringham estate and Royal Lodge, his former home in Windsor. Searches of both properties began on the day of his arrest.

The arrest and the investigation

Andrew was arrested on 19 February, his 66th birthday, on suspicion of misconduct in public office. He was interviewed under caution for 12 hours at Aylsham police station before being released under investigation. Police allege he shared sensitive information with Jeffrey Epstein between 2001 and 2011, when he was the UK's trade envoy. Publico reports that the inquiry followed the release of millions of Epstein-related documents by the US Department of Justice. Andrew denies any wrongdoing connected with Epstein but regrets the friendship. Thames Valley Police announced on 24 February that the search operations had ended.

Police position and what remains open

Thames Valley Police accepted the court's position in the hearing. Its spokesperson said:

“We accept the position that the initial court decision to issue warrants under the specific legislation used was incorrect and that they must therefore be legally quashed.”

The judge explained that the warrants should not have been used to seize material covered by legal privilege or by "Special Procedure material", documents acquired in confidence during public work. Thames Valley Police has admitted that some of the seized material crossed that threshold. Police have applied to keep the material under a different provision, and Andrew opposes that bid. A hearing will be held in private in 2027. Hilliard said:

“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.”

He also said there would be little point handing the material back if it could be lawfully seized again under some other provision. The police statement says its investigation into alleged misconduct in public office by a man in his 60s from Norfolk remains ongoing.

The Royal Lodge lease

The Crown Estate announced on Friday, 9 October, that Andrew had ended the Royal Lodge lease more than 50 years before the scheduled date, which entitles him to "302,000 pounds" in compensation (about 356,000 euros according to Publico). Under the lease he had paid 1.8 million pounds (about 2.1 million euros) for necessary repairs, and the compensation reduced that outlay to 1.5 million pounds (about 1.8 million euros). He had already spent 7.5 million pounds remodelling the 30-room property when he moved there more than 20 years ago. A spokesperson said the focus was now on the property's future use and on generating additional financial value for the nation through its early return.

Compensation paid to Andrew302,000

Repair payment before compensation1,800,000

Repair payment after compensation1,500,000

Spent on remodelling Royal Lodge7,500,000

Compensation paid to Andrew

302000 GBP

Repair payment before compensation

1800000 GBP

Repair payment after compensation

1500000 GBP

Spent on remodelling Royal Lodge

7500000 GBP

Data from the article text

Reaction and royal finances

A friend of the former duke told The Telegraph that they were "delighted" he had "finally decided to fight his corner", adding that he had been under fire for 15 long years without ever being charged. A Buckingham Palace source said this week that the ex-prince had been told money from private funds granted by the king should not be used to finance the legal challenge against Thames Valley Police. The ruling does not mean the criminal investigation into him is over, and the question of who funds the legal fight has become part of the wider scrutiny of the royal family's finances.