A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION into Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is ongoing despite the search warrants that allowed police officers to raid two of his properties being ruled unlawful, the UK’s High Court has heard.

The former British prince had launched a legal challenge against Thames Valley Police over the lawfulness of the warrants issued by a judge at the Old Bailey allowing officers to raid his residence on the Sandringham Estate and his former Windsor home, Royal Lodge, in February.

At a hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice today, which Andrew did not attend, Mr Justice Hilliard said that “agreement was reached between the claimant and Thames Valley Police that the search warrants were unlawful”.

But the judge also said that “the fact that the search warrants were quashed does not bring an investigation to an end, or mean that the whole of the investigation was unlawful”.

In a statement after the hearing, a spokesman for Thames Valley Police said 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.

“Legal proceedings are currently ongoing to decide how material seized during the searches will be managed and whether we can lawfully retain it in support of our ongoing investigation.

“Our investigation into alleged misconduct in public office by a man in his 60s from Norfolk remains ongoing, and we continue to pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry to effectively and fairly progress this investigation.”

Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office following allegations he shared sensitive information with Jeffrey Epstein during his time as the UK’s trade envoy between 2001 and 2011.

A police car at the entrance to the Sandringham Estate in Norfolk in February. Alamy Stock Photo Alamy Stock Photo

He was interviewed under caution before being released under investigation, and denies wrongdoing.

In his ruling today, Mr Justice Hilliard said that the judge who granted the search warrants on 18 February had done so on the basis that the items wanted were not subject to legal privilege or amounted to special procedure material.

He said special procedure material included “material which is in possession of a person who acquired it or created it in the court of any trade, business, profession or other occupation or for the purpose of any paid or unpaid public office, and who holds it subject to an express or implied undertaking to hold it in confidence”.

He continued: “Shortly after proceedings were issued the second defendant conceded the judge could not properly have been satisfied there were reasonable grounds for believing the material searched for did not include items subject to legal privilege or special procedure material, because the search for this material was especially envisaged in the application for search warrants and inherent in respect of the allegation.”

The judge also said that police made an application in June to allow them to retain evidence obtained through the searches, even though the search warrants were unlawful.

He continued that Mountbatten-Windsor opposes the bid to retain the evidence, with a hearing in the case to be held in private in 2027.

Today’s hearing had been expected to deal with a bid by police to restrict access to documents in the legal claim, but Mr Justice Hilliard said that on Wednesday afternoon, police indicated that they no longer pursued the matter.