UK judge rules search warrants used in Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor property raids were unlawful

A London judge said Thursday that search warrants police used to raid properties belonging to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, were unlawful, after Thames Valley Police itself acknowledged the warrants had been obtained incorrectly. The ruling, reported by outlets including the Associated Press, Reuters, the BBC and Sky News, came in a High Court case in which Mountbatten-Windsor challenged the legality of the searches.

According to Reuters and the Straits Times, police said the warrants had been incorrectly granted and must be quashed, with Reuters and the Straits Times describing the error as a legal mistake accepted by police. Global News reported that Justice Nicholas Hilliard said Thames Valley Police had made a significant error when applying for the warrant used to search the former prince's properties.

Thames Valley Police searched Mountbatten-Windsor's properties as part of an investigation into his ties to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to multiple outlets including France 24 and the Washington Examiner. France 24 reported that the 66-year-old, the younger brother of King Charles, was arrested on February 19 on suspicion of misconduct in public office; the Washington Examiner similarly linked the arrest to the investigation into alleged misconduct during his time as a prince.

Despite the quashing of the warrants, the broader criminal investigation into Mountbatten-Windsor remains active. RTÉ News and the Mirror both reported that the investigation into alleged misconduct in public office is continuing even though the warrants that allowed the raids were found unlawful. Independent Journal Review added that Mountbatten-Windsor denies wrongdoing.

Several outlets, including NBC News, the Independent and the Daily Express, characterized the ruling as a legal win for Mountbatten-Windsor. The BBC and Sky News reported that both Mountbatten-Windsor and Thames Valley Police agreed the warrants used to raid the two properties were unlawful.

How the coverage differed

Center and right-leaning outlets, including Reuters, the Straits Times and Independent Journal Review, gave more detailed attribution to police statements, emphasizing that Thames Valley Police itself acknowledged the legal error in applying for the warrants. Left-leaning outlets such as the AP, NBC News and the Guardian more often framed the story around the judge's ruling and described the outcome as a legal victory for Mountbatten-Windsor, with NBC News and the Independent explicitly using the language of him 'winning' the dispute.

Center outlets, particularly France 24, the Washington Examiner and Global News, provided more background detail, including Mountbatten-Windsor's age, his relationship to King Charles, and the February 19 arrest date tied to the Epstein-linked investigation. Many left-leaning headlines, by contrast, focused narrowly on the unlawfulness finding without including this additional context in the same item.

The continuation of the underlying criminal investigation was reported by outlets across the spectrum, including the Mirror on the left, RTÉ News and the BBC in the center, and Independent Journal Review on the right, indicating broad agreement on this point despite differing emphasis elsewhere. Independent Journal Review was the only outlet in the supplied material to explicitly note that Mountbatten-Windsor denies wrongdoing.

What is still unclear

The sources do not specify what legal basis was initially used for the warrants or precisely why it was deemed incorrect, beyond describing it as an error. It is also unclear from the material what property or evidence was seized during the searches, what the investigation into misconduct in public office has found so far, or what happens next in either the civil challenge or the criminal probe.