Justicia · Recurso contra las órdenes de registroLas órdenes de registro de Andrew fueron anuladas en julio. La policía aún conserva el material incautadoEscrito 9 de octubre de 2026 a las 14:32 UTCVerTranscripción0:09On October 6th, we reported Andrew's warrant challenge was pending.0:13The court had already quashed them.0:15Police still hold the documents and electronic devices seized from his homes, and0:19their misconduct investigation continues.0:22Whether investigators can lawfully keep and examine that material is now the court0:26fight.0:26Andrew Mountbatten Winsor didn't attend the October 8th hearing at the Royal Courts0:30of Justice.0:31Mr.0:31Justice Nicholas Hilliard explained the warrant outcome publicly there.0:34The court had made its decision months earlier, on July 26th.0:37The High Court acted in July, well before the October hearing.0:41Thames Valley Police confirmed that timing in its October 8th statement.0:45Our earlier statement that the challenge was still awaiting a ruling was wrong.0:48The Recorder of London issued the warrants at the Old Bailey on February 18th.0:53Police searched the homes and arrested Andrew the following day.0:56He filed his court claim on May 18th.0:58The warrants were quashed July 22nd before the October 8th explanation.1:03Andrew was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office on his 66th1:07birthday.1:08Police questioned him for 11 hours and released him under investigation.1:12Investigators are examining allegations that he shared sensitive information with1:15convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein while serving as a UK trade envoy.1:19Andrew denies wrongdoing.1:20Royal Lodge, Andrew's former home in Windsor, is one of the two searched properties.1:25The other was a residence on the Sandringham estate in Norfolk.1:28The precise Norfolk residence needs care because two different farm names have been1:32used.1:32Wood Farm and Marsh Farm are different names.1:35The exact residence hasn't been settled.1:37Our earlier mention of Marsh Farm was a reported identification and shouldn't be1:41treated as a confirmed address.1:43Police sought authority under Sections 8 and 9 of the Police and Criminal Evidence1:47Act, but the warrants were granted under Section 8.1:49Hilliard concluded that lawful warrants for these searches required Section 9.1:53Police and Andrew's side agreed the warrants were unlawful.1:56Hilliard said a significant error had been made in both the application for the2:00warrants and their grant.2:01The failure reached back to the legal authority police obtained before entering the2:05homes.2:06It involved the application and the court's approval.2:08Section 9 requires police to follow a prescribed application procedure for material.2:13The law calls excluded material or special procedure material.2:17It directs them to Schedule 1 of the Act.2:19Investigators have to comply with that procedure to obtain access.2:23Hilliard also said the investigation could continue.2:26Thames Valley Police is still investigating the alleged misconduct.2:30The successful warrant challenge resolves the authority for those searches.2:34The allegation against Andrew still has to be investigated.2:37Police still have the documentary records and electronic devices taken from the2:41homes.2:42They've already made a separate application to retain that property under a2:45different legal provision.2:46Andrew opposes it.2:48So the next dispute concerns material investigators already possess.2:51Keeping the items, examining their contents, and using those contents as evidence2:56involve further legal questions.2:58Police custody alone doesn't settle those questions.3:01Andrew's lawyers are reportedly seeking to exclude evidence obtained in the searches3:05from any future trial.3:06The court hasn't decided that request.3:08Criminal barrister Chris Dawes says courts generally allow investigations to3:12continue when police could properly have obtained a warrant.3:15He also says orders returning seized material are very rare.3:19That's his assessment of legal practice.3:21The court must decide what happens to these particular items.3:24The October 8th hearing also dealt with police efforts to restrict access to the3:28court file.3:29The outcome was reportedly no restriction on access.3:33The judge didn't order the documents and devices seized from Andrew's homes to be3:37made public.3:37The court file contains papers from the legal proceedings.3:40The seized documents and devices remain with police while the separate dispute3:44continues.3:45Andrew's judicial review claim challenged the Central Criminal Court and the Chief3:49Constable of Thames Valley Police.3:51The Palace's position on October 6th was that the king wouldn't fund Andrew's legal3:55action.3:56It also said his private support for his brother shouldn't pay for it.3:59That was the position carried in our earlier report.4:02Nobody has identified who's paying for the litigation.4:05The old warrants have been quashed.4:07Police now need the court to resolve their authority over the material they hold.4:11A hearing or decision on that separate dispute is expected in 2027.4:15No exact date has been announced.Leer el artículoCronología de la historiaHeyDexEl vídeo breve ↗Quién informó quéPuntos que informó más de un medioAndrew’s arrest on suspicion of misconduct8 medios✓High Court ruling on the warrants’ legalityConfirmado de forma independiente · 7 medios✓Police effort to retain seized materialConfirmado de forma independiente · 6 mediosAllegations involving information shared with Epstein6 mediosProperties searched on the day of arrest6 mediosAndrew’s legal challenge to the searches5 medios✓Whether the police investigation is ongoingConfirmado de forma independiente · 5 medios✓Effect of quashing warrants on investigationConfirmado de forma independiente · 4 mediosJudge’s finding of significant warrant error3 mediosScheduled High Court hearing3 mediosDate the properties were searched3 mediosPossible effect on use of evidence3 mediosLegal action against police over arrest2 mediosPolice agreement with the court’s ruling2 mediosAndrew Mountbatten-Windsor has begun legal proceedings against Thames Valley Police.2 mediosWarrants quashed for two properties2 mediosPolice statement on proceedings and investigation2 mediosLegal provision required for the warrants2 mediosAgreement that the warrants were unlawful2 mediosCustody of material during the legal challenge2 mediosUncertainty over return or retention of seized material2 mediosPuntos que informó un solo medio3Solo lo informó BBC NewsPolice acceptance of the warrant error8 oct, 14:13 UTCTiming of the warrants being quashed8 oct, 17:00 UTCSolo lo informó ITV NewsAndrew’s legal team’s view of the warrants5 oct, 18:07 UTCCada línea es la afirmación tal como la registramos del informe de ese medio. Comparado a fecha de 9 de octubre de 2026 a las 20:12 UTC.
