Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor challenges police search warrants in High Court
publishers 23articles 24first reported 5 Oct, 06:17 UTCdeveloping since 5 Oct · 11 editions
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has asked the High Court in London to quash warrants used to search two of his residences during a police investigation into alleged misconduct in public office linked to Jeffrey Epstein.
The U.K. judiciary confirmed Monday that Andrew had applied for judicial review of warrants issued by a Central Criminal Court judge on February 18, 2026. Police subsequently searched his former Royal Lodge home near Windsor Castle and a residence on King Charles III’s Sandringham estate.
Andrew was arrested on February 19 on suspicion of misconduct in public office following allegations that he shared sensitive information with Epstein while serving as the United Kingdom’s trade envoy. Police questioned him before releasing him under investigation, meaning he has not been charged. Andrew has denied wrongdoing.
A hearing is scheduled for Thursday. According to the judiciary’s press office, it will address an application by Thames Valley Police to restrict access to court documents and is likely to be held in private.
Thames Valley Police confirmed that it is involved in legal proceedings concerning the warrants and said its misconduct investigation remains active. The force declined further comment while the court case is underway.
The BBC reported that funding provided to Andrew by the king will not be used for the legal action against police.
HOW THIS STORY WAS MADE
Written from 8 articles, 3 with the publisher's own text; 8 independent newsrooms once syndicated copies count as one; this version written 12 h after the record first saw the story; the editor kept it as written.
- Publishers
- 23
- Source articles
- 24
- Given to the writer
- 8, 3 with the article's own text
- Independent newsrooms
- 8
- This version written
- 12 h after the record first saw the story
- Second model (editor)
- kept as written
- Publication gate
- passed
- Human review
- none
WHAT THE EDITOR DID
The second model checked the writer's draft against the same sources and published it as written.
Written by a language model from the sources above, then checked by a second model that may only cut, attribute or correct. How it works →