Key Points
- The High Court has struck down the search warrants that were granted for the two properties linked to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, who was once Prince Andrew, located in Norfolk and Berkshire.
- The Thames Valley Police accepted that the warrants were obtained using the incorrect statutory provision and hence unlawful.
- The warrants were made by a judge at the Central Criminal Court on 18 February 2026.
- It emerged that the searches were part of an ongoing investigation on the misconduct in public office concerning a man in his 60s from Norfolk.
- The court ruled that the warrants ought to be granted under Section 9 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, not Section 8.
- On 22 July 2026, the High Court quashed the warrants.
- According to the Thames Valley Police, there are ongoing legal proceedings in relation to the seized items during the search, which include the lawfulness of retaining the seized items.
- The National Police Chiefs’ Council recognized the ruling and stated that the case will not terminate the investigations or declare the entire process as illegal.
- This was an application for judicial review filed by Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor against the chief constable of Thames Valley Police and the Central Criminal.
Wales (Wales Times) October 08, 2026 — The High Court has ruled that search warrants used by Thames Valley Police to search two properties linked to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor were unlawful and must be quashed. The force accepted before the court that the warrants had been secured under the wrong legal provision.
As reported by Reuters, Thames Valley Police said it accepted that the initial court’s decision to issue the warrants under the specific legislation used was incorrect. A spokesperson said: “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.”
The ruling concerns warrants granted on 18 February 2026 for two properties: one in Norfolk and one in Berkshire. The properties were searched as part of Thames Valley Police’s investigation into alleged misconduct in public office by a man in his 60s from Norfolk.
Why Were the Warrants Unlawful?
The issue was not that Thames Valley Police lacked a legal route to seek a search warrant, but that it used the wrong statutory route. According to reporting by People, the force initially applied under section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, while the searches should have been authorised under section 9.
As reported by The Independent, the case concerned Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s application for judicial review to quash search warrants issued by a judge at the Central Criminal Court on 18 February 2026. The judiciary’s press office said the challenge was brought against the chief constable of Thames Valley Police and the Central Criminal Court.
The National Police Chiefs’ Council acknowledged the High Court’s decision. An NPCC spokesperson said: “We acknowledge the High Court’s decision to quash search warrants issued under the wrong legal provision by the Central Criminal…” The remainder of the statement was truncated in the publicly available search result.
What Happened During the Searches?
Thames Valley Police executed the warrants at the two properties on 19 February 2026, according to reporting by Yahoo News. The force said it accepted that the initial court’s decision to issue warrants under the legislation used was incorrect when permission to search the properties was granted.
Reuters reported that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor applied for the warrants to be quashed and that Thames Valley Police accepted they had not been properly granted. The force said material had been seized during the searches and that legal proceedings were ongoing to determine how that material would be managed.
The police also stated that the proceedings would consider whether the material could be lawfully retained to support the ongoing investigation.
Does the Ruling End the Investigation?
No. Thames Valley Police and the court made clear that the quashing of the warrants does not terminate the investigation. The force said the agreement related specifically to the legal basis for the warrants and was not a judgment on the investigation itself.
As reported by The News and other outlets, Judge Nicholas Hilliard said: “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.”
Thames Valley Police reiterated that the investigation remains ongoing. It said proceedings are currently under way to decide how material seized during the searches will be managed and whether it can lawfully retain that material in support of the investigation.
What Happens to Seized Material?
The immediate legal question is whether Thames Valley Police may retain the material seized during the searches. The force said proceedings are ongoing to decide how the material will be managed and whether it can lawfully retain it.
No public information in the available reporting states what material was seized, how much was taken, or what use the force intends to make of it. The court’s ruling addresses the validity of the warrants rather than setting out a final disposition of the material.
The case therefore leaves open a separate question: whether evidence obtained during searches later found to be unlawful can still be retained or used in support of the investigation. Thames Valley Police said it is addressing that issue through ongoing legal proceedings.
Who Brought the Challenge?
The challenge was brought by Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the younger brother of King Charles and formerly known as Prince Andrew. He applied for judicial review against the chief constable of Thames Valley Police and the Central Criminal Court.
As reported by the BBC, the warrants were issued on 18 February 2026, the day before Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested. The legal challenge concerned the warrants that led to that arrest.
The hearing was held in private. The judiciary confirmed before the hearing that the case concerned Mountbatten-Windsor’s application for judicial review to quash the warrants issued on 18 February 2026.
What Did Thames Valley Police Say?
Thames Valley Police accepted the legal error and did not contest the need to quash the warrants. A spokesperson said the force accepted that the initial court’s decision to issue warrants under the specific legislation used was incorrect.
The force also said that legal proceedings were ongoing concerning the management and potential retention of seized material. It stressed that the ruling did not amount to a judgment on the wider investigation.
The National Police Chiefs’ Council, which represents police leaders across the United Kingdom, also acknowledged the High Court’s decision.
Background of the Development
The development arises from a judicial-review application by Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor concerning search warrants issued by a judge at the Central Criminal Court on 18 February 2026. The warrants authorised searches of two properties, one in Norfolk and one in Berkshire, as part of an investigation into alleged misconduct in public office.
Thames Valley Police applied for warrants under sections 8 and 9 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The court determined that only section 8 warrants were needed at the time, but the subsequent legal challenge established that the searches should have been conducted under section 9 warrants.
The High Court formally quashed the warrants on 22 July 2026. Both parties accepted that the legal basis on which the warrants were originally issued was incorrect.
The ruling does not make a finding on the underlying allegations in the investigation. It concerns the statutory provision under which the search warrants were obtained.
Prediction: How This Affects the Audience
For members of the public following the case, the immediate effect is greater scrutiny of how police forces obtain and execute search warrants. The ruling demonstrates that a warrant can be quashed where it is issued under the wrong legal provision, even where an investigation itself continues.
For people subject to police searches, the development highlights the importance of the legal basis for a warrant. The case may prompt closer scrutiny of whether material seized under an invalid warrant can be retained, particularly where the force says it needs the material for an ongoing investigation.
For Thames Valley Police and other forces, the decision is likely to increase attention on warrant applications, statutory accuracy and the handling of seized material. The force has said it is addressing the retention question through ongoing legal proceedings, meaning further court decisions may follow.
For followers of royal affairs, the ruling represents a procedural legal victory for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, but it does not resolve the wider investigation or make a finding on the allegations.
