Police feared Andrew would claim his home belonged to the King to delay searches

The key facts

Police feared Mountbatten-Windsor would claim the Sandringham house belonged to King Charles to delay access
The search warrants were ruled unlawful, but seized materials remain with police
The criminal investigation continues; the 19 February arrest was on suspicion of misconduct in public office

Police fears before the searches

Thames Valley Police feared that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor might try to prevent officers from entering his house at Sandringham by claiming it belonged to the King, court documents show. Senior officers feared the King's brother would assert that the property was not his and that separate permission for entry would be required. In the police's view, delay risked the loss of evidence.

Circumstances of the arrest

The former prince's arrest on 19 February was on suspicion of misconduct in public office, after the US Department of Justice published materials on his ties to Jeffrey Epstein. On 18 February, police applied to the Central Criminal Court for search warrants for Wood Farm at Sandringham and Royal Lodge at Windsor. Police noted that Mountbatten-Windsor or his lawyers might demand 'court permission' for entry, and also that no one might be home and media attention would be drawn by the presence of police at the entrance. Delays, police said, could hinder gathering evidence 'given the seriousness of the investigation.' In his complaint, Mountbatten-Windsor called these claims 'nothing more than speculation.'

What police were looking for

The documents reveal that police sought papers, diaries, business records and other documents related to Mountbatten-Windsor's work as a special representative for trade and investment, as well as phones, computers and other electronic devices that might contain information about his ties to Epstein. Among the grounds for questioning is the claim that, as a trade envoy, he forwarded to Epstein official reports on visits to Singapore, Vietnam, China and Hong Kong; letters in the Epstein files published in the US indicated he informed Epstein of investment opportunities in Afghanistan, and meetings are also mentioned with a private investment firm in which he allegedly suggested Epstein invest. The search of Royal Lodge continued until 24 February; questioning at Aylesbury police station began at 15:00 GMT, and he was released under investigation at 18:36.

Warrants ruled unlawful

At a High Court hearing in early October, Thames Valley Police admitted the search warrants were unlawful. Police had applied under sections 8 and 9 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; the court issued warrants only under section 8, but subsequent challenge showed section 9 should have been used. Mr Justice Hilliard noted that Mountbatten-Windsor and police agreed the warrants were unlawful, but added: 'The fact that the warrants are quashed does not end the investigation and does not mean the whole investigation is unlawful.' The seized materials remain with police; a hearing on their admissibility as evidence will take place in 2027. The criminal investigation into Mountbatten-Windsor continues. He denies any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein.