न्याय · तलाशी वारंट को चुनौतीएंड्रयू के वारंट जुलाई में रद्द हुए। पुलिस के पास अब भी जब्त सामग्री हैलिखित 9 अक्टूबर 2026 को 2:32 pm UTC बजेदेखेंप्रतिलेख0:09On 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.लेख पढ़ेंखबर की समयरेखाHeyDexसंक्षिप्त वीडियो ↗किसने क्या बतायाएक से अधिक संस्थानों द्वारा बताए गए बिंदुAndrew’s arrest on suspicion of misconduct8 समाचार माध्यम✓High Court ruling on the warrants’ legalityस्वतंत्र रूप से पुष्टि · 7 समाचार माध्यम✓Police effort to retain seized materialस्वतंत्र रूप से पुष्टि · 6 समाचार माध्यमAllegations involving information shared with Epstein6 समाचार माध्यमProperties searched on the day of arrest6 समाचार माध्यमAndrew’s legal challenge to the searches5 समाचार माध्यम✓Whether the police investigation is ongoingस्वतंत्र रूप से पुष्टि · 5 समाचार माध्यम✓Effect of quashing warrants on investigationस्वतंत्र रूप से पुष्टि · 4 समाचार माध्यमJudge’s finding of significant warrant error3 समाचार माध्यमScheduled High Court hearing3 समाचार माध्यमDate the properties were searched3 समाचार माध्यमPossible effect on use of evidence3 समाचार माध्यमLegal action against police over arrest2 समाचार माध्यमPolice agreement with the court’s ruling2 समाचार माध्यमAndrew Mountbatten-Windsor has begun legal proceedings against Thames Valley Police.2 समाचार माध्यमWarrants quashed for two properties2 समाचार माध्यमPolice statement on proceedings and investigation2 समाचार माध्यमLegal provision required for the warrants2 समाचार माध्यमAgreement that the warrants were unlawful2 समाचार माध्यमCustody of material during the legal challenge2 समाचार माध्यमUncertainty over return or retention of seized material2 समाचार माध्यमकेवल एक संस्थान द्वारा बताए गए बिंदु3केवल BBC News ने बतायाPolice acceptance of the warrant error8 अक्टू॰, 2:13 pm UTCTiming of the warrants being quashed8 अक्टू॰, 5:00 pm UTCकेवल ITV News ने बतायाAndrew’s legal team’s view of the warrants5 अक्टू॰, 6:07 pm UTCहर पंक्ति उस संस्थान की रिपोर्ट से हमारे द्वारा दर्ज किया गया दावा है। 9 अक्टूबर 2026 को 8:12 pm UTC बजे तक तुलना की गई।
