High Court quashes the warrants used to search Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's homes

Thames Valley Police accepted on Thursday that the search warrants it used on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's homes at the time of his arrest in February were unlawful, and Mr Justice Nicholas Hilliard recorded that the warrants must be quashed. The investigation is not closed. The force is applying to keep what it seized, Mountbatten-Windsor opposes that application, and the judge said the argument over the material will not be decided until 2027.

Hilliard told the High Court that the former prince and the police had agreed the warrants were unlawful. He added that the quashing does not bring the investigation to an end, and does not mean the whole of the investigation is unlawful. That sentence is the operative one for the case. The searches fall. The inquiry stays open. The boxes stay with the police for now.

What the force said it got wrong

A Thames Valley Police spokesperson said the force accepted that the initial court's decision to issue warrants under the specific piece of legislation used was incorrect, and that the warrants must therefore be legally quashed. The spokesperson said the force had put the necessary information and paperwork before the court and had followed the correct legal processes. The error, on that account, sits with the statutory route chosen for the warrants, not with a claim that officers invented grounds.

The same spokesperson said legal proceedings are under way to decide how the seized material will be managed and whether it can lawfully be retained for the investigation. The force said it had returned only material judged unconnected to the inquiry. It had not handed back the rest. Mountbatten-Windsor has made no public comment since his arrest in February, Reuters reported. His challenge is the application to quash, which succeeded on the agreed basis, and the opposition to retention, which is still live.

The BBC reported that a further hearing on whether the material can be used as evidence is expected in 2027. Hilliard said the same. A year or more between a quashed warrant and a ruling on the contents is a long hold. During that hold the police keep the documents and devices, and the defence keeps the objection.

What Thursday does not decide

Thursday does not decide guilt, and it does not return the seized property. It decides that the February warrants were issued under the wrong provision and cannot stand. Search warrants are the legal basis for entering a home and taking items. If the basis fails, the items are in official hands without a valid warrant, which is why the retention hearing exists at all. Hilliard separated that defect from the investigation itself. A flawed warrant does not, in his formulation, make every later step unlawful.

The practical consequence is a split calendar. The warrant point is over. The evidence point is listed for next year. Until that hearing, the public record is the judge's line that the inquiry continues, the force's line that it wants to keep the material, and the absence of any statement from Mountbatten-Windsor. King Charles's younger brother remains under investigation. The homes were searched on warrants the High Court has now quashed.