Thames Valley Police has accepted warrants it used to search Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s homes at the time of his arrest in February were unlawful, the High Court has been told.
Following Thursday’s hearing, items seized in the raid continue to be held by the police, with a further hearing to take place in 2027 to decide whether the material can be used as evidence.
Meanwhile, the criminal investigation into Mountbatten-Windsor is ongoing.
The former prince, who denies any wrongdoing, was arrested by police on 19 February on suspicion of misconduct in public office, after which he launched a legal challenge over the legality of the search warrants.
The force said it accepted that the “initial court’s decision to issue warrants under the specific piece of legislation used was incorrect” before they searched the properties.
On Thursday at the High Court, judge Mr Justice Hilliard said Mountbatten-Windsor and the police had agreed that the search warrants had been unlawful.
However, he added: “The fact that the search warrants were quashed does not bring the investigation to an end or mean that the whole of the investigation is unlawful.”
Mountbatten-Windsor opposes the police’s bid to retain the evidence, the judge said, and another hearing is expected in 2027.
His lawyers have used a judicial review to challenge the actions of the force’s chief constable and the Central Criminal Court in the build-up to his arrest.
His arrest arose after the US Department of Justice published documents which raised suspicions he had forwarded confidential information to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein when Mountbatten-Windsor was a UK trade envoy in 2010.
He has consistently denied any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein.
The court heard on Thursday that Thames Valley Police seized documents and electronic devices when they raided Mountbatten-Windsor’s homes earlier this year.
Thames Valley Police’s position was that they had applied for search warrants under section eight and nine of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 at a hearing at the Central Criminal Court the day before the search.
That court determined that only section eight search warrants were needed and they were granted on that basis – but subsequently, a legal challenge has established that the court should have issued them under the section nine.
The judge explained on Thursday why the police could keep hold of the former prince’s items that had been seized.
He said: “There would be little point in handing property back if it could then simply be lawfully seized under some other provision.”
