UK court quashes warrants used to search Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s properties
publishers 39articles 47first reported 5 Oct, 06:17 UTCdeveloping since 5 Oct · 11 editions
The High Court in London has quashed warrants used by Thames Valley Police to search two properties linked to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, after police accepted that the warrants had been granted under the wrong legal provision.
Justice Nicholas Hilliard said Thursday that a “significant error” had been made in the application for and granting of the warrants. The searches were conducted at Mountbatten-Windsor’s home on the Sandringham Estate in Norfolk and his former residence, Royal Lodge in Windsor Great Park.
Mountbatten-Windsor, 66, was arrested in February on suspicion of misconduct in public office amid an investigation connected to his relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. He was questioned and released under investigation without being charged. He has denied wrongdoing related to Epstein.
Hilliard said quashing the warrants did not end the investigation or make the entire inquiry unlawful. Thames Valley Police described the ruling as limited to the legal basis under which the warrants were issued and said its investigation remained active.
Separate legal proceedings will determine whether police may retain and use material seized during the searches. The force said it had returned only items considered unrelated to the inquiry, while Mountbatten-Windsor is opposing its effort to keep the remaining property.
HOW THIS STORY WAS MADE
Written from 8 articles, 6 with the publisher's own text; 8 independent newsrooms once syndicated copies count as one (7 if wire copies count as one too); this version written 96 h after the record first saw the story; the editor kept it as written.
- Publishers
- 39
- Source articles
- 47
- Given to the writer
- 8, 6 with the article's own text
- Independent newsrooms
- 8 (7 if wire copies count as one)
- This version written
- 96 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 →