London — A High Court judge has ruled that search warrants used by police to raid the homes of Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, were unlawful. The decision, revealed on Thursday, marks a rare legal victory for a senior member of the British royal family, who had challenged the legality of the searches.
Judge Nicholas Hilliard said that Thames Valley Police (TVP) had acknowledged that the warrants, issued under a specific piece of legislation, were legally flawed. However, he stressed that the ruling does not end the investigation into Prince Andrew's alleged links to the late US sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
“The fact that the search warrants were quashed does not bring an investigation to an end,” Hilliard said in his ruling. He added that TVP were continuing their inquiries.
The court must still decide whether police can retain items seized during the searches. Hilliard said he would rule “in due course” on a police application to keep the property, noting that “there would be little point in handing property back if it could then simply be lawfully seized under some other provision.”
In a statement, Thames Valley Police said they accepted 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.”
Prince Andrew, the younger brother of King Charles III, was arrested in February on his 66th birthday on suspicion of misconduct in public office, a charge linked to his association with Epstein. He has consistently denied any wrongdoing and has not been charged with a crime.
The case has drawn intense media scrutiny, not least because it is reportedly the first time a member of the royal family has challenged the legality of criminal proceedings since the trial of Charles I in 1649. That historical echo underscores the gravity of the situation for the monarchy, which has sought to distance itself from the scandal.
Legal experts say the ruling could have wider implications for how police obtain search warrants in sensitive cases. The specific legislation used by TVP was designed for certain types of offences, and the court found that it did not apply to the circumstances of this investigation.
The development comes amid broader debates across Europe about the balance between privacy and police powers. In recent months, student protests in Paris and clashes in Marseille and Lille have highlighted tensions over law enforcement tactics, while an incident near Stockholm's royal palace raised questions about security around European monarchies.
For now, the focus remains on the British legal system. The judge's decision to quash the warrants is a setback for the police, but it does not exonerate Prince Andrew. The investigation is ongoing, and the possibility of further legal action remains.
Observers note that the case has already had a significant impact on the royal family's public image. Prince Andrew stepped back from royal duties in 2019 following widespread criticism of his association with Epstein and his disastrous television interview about their friendship.
The next legal step will be the court's decision on whether police can keep the seized items. That ruling, expected in the coming months, could determine the future direction of the investigation.
