Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has won the first round of his legal fight against British police after Thames Valley Police conceded on Thursday that the search warrants behind the February raids on his two homes were unlawful. At a private hearing at London's Royal Courts of Justice, the court agreed to quash the warrants — but made clear the criminal investigation into the former prince is not over, and a separate legal battle is now underway over whether police can keep the documents and electronic devices they seized.
Mr Justice Nicholas Hilliard told the court on Oct. 8 that "agreement was reached between the claimant and Thames Valley Police that the search warrants were unlawful." Because the force conceded, no full hearing was needed. According to People, the two sides had in fact quietly agreed to quash the warrants as far back as July 22. Andrew did not attend the hearing.
The warrants were issued on Feb. 18, 2026, by a judge at the Central Criminal Court, known as the Old Bailey. The following day, detectives raided two properties — Marsh Farm on the Sandringham Estate in Norfolk and Royal Lodge in Windsor — and spent days searching them, removing documents and electronic devices.
The flaw was technical but fatal: police had sought the warrants under Section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act when they should have used Section 9. In other words, the Old Bailey judge authorized the searches under the wrong part of the legislation.
Thames Valley Police was careful to say the error lay with the court's decision, not with the force itself. "We accept the position that the initial court's decision to issue warrants under the specific piece of legislation used was incorrect and therefore these must be legally quashed," a force spokesperson said, adding that the force had given the court "all the necessary information and paperwork" when it applied for the warrants.
The judge stressed the limits of the ruling: "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."
Police echoed that line in their statement. "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. The criminal investigation — which the force says began after the U.S. Department of Justice released millions of documents relating to Jeffrey Epstein — continues.
USA Today noted that the judicial review is the first time a member of the royal family has challenged the lawfulness of criminal proceedings against them since the trial of Charles I in 1649.
The stakes for Andrew are personal and high. Stripped of his prince and Duke of York titles last year over his ties to the late sex offender Epstein, he was arrested on Feb. 19, 2026 — his 66th birthday — on suspicion of misconduct in public office, over allegations that he shared confidential information with Epstein while serving as Britain's trade envoy. He was taken to Aylsham police station in Norfolk, questioned under caution for about 11 hours, and released under investigation the same day. He has denied any wrongdoing and has not been formally charged.
Buckingham Palace has confirmed that King Charles is funding Andrew's living costs but is not paying for this legal claim.
The Times reported that Thames Valley Police has launched fresh proceedings to try to retain the seized documents and electronic devices through a different legislative route. The property will remain in police custody while that fight plays out.
Reuters reported that the dispute over the seized material will not be resolved until next year — Andrew is opposing the force's attempt to keep it. For now, police say they are pursuing "all reasonable lines of enquiry" and the investigation into alleged misconduct in public office by "a man in his 60s from Norfolk" remains active.