Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has won a legal ruling that found defects in the search warrants issued by Thames Valley police in an investigation concerning allegations of misconduct in public office, which he denies. The High Court judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Hilliard, determined that the warrant approval process in February was unlawful. However, this decision is unlikely to result in financial compensation or hamper the ongoing investigation.

The warrants led to a high-profile police search of Mountbatten-Windsor’s properties and his subsequent arrest earlier this year. The King’s brother, who lost his royal titles in November, had expressed frustration with the pace of the inquiry and sought judicial review over how the search warrants were granted. The court’s ruling acknowledges procedural flaws but does not invalidate the entire investigation.

The case is seen within legal circles as significant primarily because of Thames Valley police’s unusual admission regarding errors in the warrant process. “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,” said Andrew Gilmore, a partner at Grosvenor Law. He noted that while Mountbatten-Windsor may be eligible for compensation due to the unlawful search, any payout would likely be limited, as the breach was largely technical.

This situation contrasts with a notable previous incident involving Thames Valley police in Reading two years ago, when officers mistakenly executed a search on the wrong address, disturbing a family with young children. That incident resulted in the police paying £57,000 in damages. In Mountbatten-Windsor’s case, the issue is procedural rather than involving a wrongful physical entry or mistaken address.

The judge emphasized that quashing the search warrants “does not bring an investigation to an end or mean that the whole of the investigation was unlawful.” A hearing is scheduled for next year to decide whether the police can continue to use evidence obtained during the searches under separate legislative authority.

Thames Valley police stated they remain committed to following “all reasonable lines of inquiry to effectively and fairly progress this investigation.” A friend of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor described him as “philosophical” about the ruling but acknowledged that those close to him feel the situation keenly. They expressed frustration over what they called “performative policing” and “flawed procedures,” characterizing the handling of the case as emblematic of a broader issue with the presumption of innocence and natural justice.

Nick Vamos, the former head of special crime at the Crown Prosecution Service, described the ruling as an embarrassment for Thames Valley police but stressed it was a technical misstep. He suggested that, despite the flawed warrants, courts would probably allow the police to retain and use the materials gathered in the investigation.