Andrew WINS High Court battle as police admit raids on Sandringham and Windsor were unlawful - but vow to continue investigation

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has won a High Court challenge as it was ruled that police raids on his homes were unlawful.

The legal drama throws into doubt the investigation by Thames Valley Police into the King's brother and his dealings with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. But Andrew is not in the clear, with police - who admitted mistakes in their warrants - asking a judge for permission to retain documents and electronic devices that were seized early this year.

The disgraced former prince was arrested on his 66th birthday in February and quizzed for nearly 12 hours at Aylsham police station. He was questioned on suspicion of misconduct in public office.

Six days of searches ensued at Royal Lodge, the Windsor home he was forced to give up after more than 20 years, and at his then-residence, Wood Farm on the Sandringham Estate in Norfolk.

The one-time Duke of York has been seen only fleetingly since, having now settled into nearby Marsh Farm. But in an extraordinary hearing at the High Court, details emerged of his legal challenge.

Andrew applied for a judicial review, asking a judge to rule that the police swoops on his homes were unlawful. He listed five grounds, only one of which has been made public - that some of the material seized might have been held by him 'in confidence'.

The challenge was pursued at the High Court earlier this year, but without the public being told anything.

Thames Valley Police conceded that the search warrants had been unlawful and Mr Justice Hilliard formally quashed the search warrants in a ruling behind closed doors on July 22, a public hearing heard.

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor earlier this year, after police raids on his house involving a search of Royal Lodge that went on for several days 

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor leaving Aylsham Police Station after he was released from custody in February 

An aerial view of police visiting Royal Lodge in Windsor, Berkshire, on Friday, February 20

On Thursday, as the story finally emerged, Thames Valley Police blamed the fiasco squarely on the unnamed Old Bailey judge who had approved the search warrants. Alan Payne KC, for Thames Valley Police, told the court: 'The judge made an error in granting the warrants.' They were apparently issued under the wrong section of the law.

Thames Valley Police vowed its investigation would continue.

In theory, the force could be made to return all of Andrew's belongings seized in the raids. Such a move would deal a potentially fatal blow to the misconduct in public office investigation that was launched after the publication of the Epstein Files this year.

Andrew was questioned about his time as the UK's trade envoy, a role he held between 2001 to 2011.

Emails suggested he had shared government information with his Wall Street friend, convicted paedophile Epstein.

After admitting the raids were unlawful, police applied on June 4 for permission to keep Andrew's belongings anyway.

They must show there is a legitimate reason for them to retain them. This application will be heard by the same judge but not until next year.

In a remark about when the police would complete their investigation, Mr Justice Hilliard said: 'I suspect that is quite a way off.'

Police officers in plain clothes arrived at Wood Farm in February where searches began

A convoy of cars drove close to Wood Farm in Sandringham shortly before it was revealed that Andrew had been arrested on his 66th birthday

The judge said the police could keep the items seized for now because 'there would be little point in handing property back if it could then simply be lawfully seized under some other provision'.

He added: 'A significant error was made in the application for and grant of the search warrants. Acknowledging that error is important.

'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.'

Police stressed the inquiry 'remains ongoing, and we continue to pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry to effectively and fairly progress this investigation'.

In a statement, the force said the setback was 'not a judgment on our ongoing investigation', and insisted police had followed 'the correct legal processes throughout'.

Legal experts questioned where the developments leave the case.

Andrew Gilmore, a partner at Grosvenor Law, said: 'The fact that the police have admitted there were defects in the search warrants they obtained is quite extraordinary and calls into question the credibility of Thames Valley Police and their ability to conduct such high-profile and sensitive operations.'

Nick Vamos, a partner at Peters & Peters and a former head of special crime at the Crown Prosecution Service, said: 'The real question is how much damage has it done to the investigation?'

Onlookers said eight people were in plain clothes 'but appeared to be police officers'

Police officers at the gates of Andrew's former home in Berkshire, Royal Lodge, in Windsor

He said a judge would decide 'whether the police would have been entitled to seize the material had they not messed up the paperwork', adding: 'If so, they can keep it but, if not, they will have to hand it back.'

Danielle Reece-Greenhalgh, partner at Corker Binning, said the quashing of the search warrants did not automatically render any seized evidence inadmissible, adding: 'Nor does it preclude the police from examining seized items, such as devices or paperwork, during their investigation.'

It is the first time since Charles I in 1649 that a royal has challenged the lawfulness of criminal proceedings. After losing his treason case, having asserted the divine right of kings and refusing to recognise the court, the then-monarch had his head chopped off.

In Andrew's case, the search of Wood Farm took one day but officers scoured 30-room Royal Lodge for almost six days.

During the searches, police vans were repeatedly seen leaving the grounds of the property. The whole case is fraught with constitutional complexities, as the King's younger brother has taken on one of the Crown's most senior judges, the Old Bailey judge who approved the search warrants.

More details of Andrew's legal challenge are set to be made public in the coming weeks. Thames Valley Police had applied to throw a veil of secrecy over the case, but abandoned its stance after a Daily Mail journalist got wind of it and asked the court for access to the legal documents last week. 

The judge said such documents would now be made public, but he gave parties in the case 14 days to make representations about whether redactions were necessary - for example, to blank out the names of police officers.

Mr Mountbatten-Windsor was stripped of his titles and evicted from Royal Lodge last autumn amid the scandal over his relationship with Epstein. He was the most senior Royal Family member to be arrested in modern times.

Q&A: Was judge at fault - or did officers blunder in getting search approved?  

Why were the search warrants quashed?

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's lawyers claimed the search warrants were unlawful because the Old Bailey judge who approved them on February 18 could not have been certain that the material seized did not include items which Andrew held 'in confidence'.

This is a condition of the granting of a warrant under section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE). Non-compliance with section 8 meant the warrants were unlawful, which Thames Valley Police admitted 'shortly' after Andrew lodged his judicial review case.

Whose mistake was it?

Apparently the warrants might have been lawful if the judge had used section 9 instead of section 8 of PACE.

Thames Valley Police squarely blamed the Old Bailey judge for this, saying the judge had 'made an error', while police had followed 'the correct legal processes throughout'.

Mr Justice Hillier put it slightly differently when he told the High Court the error had been 'in the application for and grant of the search warrants'.

Does this doom the police case?

Not according to Thames Valley Police, which says its investigation continues. It has also applied under section 59 of PACE to be allowed to correct the mistake. As the judge explained: '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.'

In other words, if police can show they have a good reason for holding Andrew's possessions, even though their searches were unlawful, they can keep them. But this will not be decided until next year.

Why were the public kept in the dark?

Somehow, Andrew's legal challenge was kept secret from the public for months. The way it was explained, there would have been a public court hearing, but then Thames Valley Police admitted their raids were unlawful, so there wasn't one.

After the judge quashed the warrants on July 22, the public were due to be informed. But Thames Valley Police objected, saying it was to 'protect the integrity' of their criminal investigation. The judge would have had to decide on this, but then on Wednesday the police dropped their opposition, leading to Thursday's open hearing.