Andrew's warrant challenge puts Epstein raid evidence at risk

The search of Royal Lodge in Windsor lasted six days.

Warrants for that raid and for Marsh Farm on the Sandringham estate were issued on February 18, 2026, by a judge at the Central Criminal Court, the Old Bailey. The next day, on his 66th birthday, Thames Valley Police arrested Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor on suspicion of misconduct in public office. He was questioned for hours, released under investigation the same day, and photographed leaving the station looking exhausted. He has not been charged.

If the High Court finds those warrants unlawful, evidence taken from the homes could be put in jeopardy.

That is the practical stake in the judicial review his lawyers have lodged against the chief constable of Thames Valley Police and the Central Criminal Court, first reported by the Daily Telegraph late Sunday. A hearing is set for Thursday and will be held in private. The judge is expected to begin by considering a police request to restrict access to some of the court papers.

Thames Valley Police confirmed it is a party to the case and declined to discuss substance. "Whilst our investigation into misconduct in public office continues, we are engaged in legal proceedings in relation to warrants previously obtained from the Central Criminal Court," a force spokesperson told Fox News Digital. "As these legal proceedings are currently ongoing, it would be inappropriate for us to comment further." Fox News Digital reached out to Andrew's attorney for comment. Other outlets reported that his lawyer did not respond to requests.

The underlying suspicion concerns his service as the United Kingdom's special representative for international trade between 2001 and 2011. In January the U.S. Department of Justice released a large tranche of Epstein-related files, reported at roughly three million documents. Emails in that release appeared to show Mountbatten-Windsor sharing material from official trade work with Jeffrey Epstein. One November 2010 message was forwarded five minutes after it arrived. A Christmas Eve 2010 email allegedly passed along a confidential brief on investment opportunities in the reconstruction of Helmand Province in Afghanistan. Other messages concerned reports on trade visits to Hong Kong, Vietnam, and Singapore.

At least nine British police forces confirmed they were examining claims drawn from those files. Thames Valley's inquiry advanced furthest. Officers searched Marsh Farm and Royal Lodge for several days after the arrest. The force has said it has been working with the Department of Justice for further information. The investigation later widened from misconduct in public office to include potential sexual misconduct allegations. Mountbatten-Windsor has consistently denied wrongdoing in his associations with Epstein. He was previously stripped of his remaining titles and left Royal Lodge after further revelations about contacts that continued past the point he had publicly described those ties as severed.

Royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams told Fox News Digital the court filing is a choice to contest procedure rather than sit out the inquiry. "He is fighting the police process rather than waiting for the investigation to conclude," Fitzwilliams said. "If he wins, it might affect evidence obtained through the searches which he is claiming were not lawfully conducted." He added: "The background to this is that the police have reportedly not obtained access to the unredacted Epstein files, which has reportedly affected their ability to investigate links between Andrew and Epstein. The investigation has been widened from misconduct in public office to include potential sexual misconduct. It is the first time a member of the royal family has challenged the legal process since Charles 1 in 1649."

Royal broadcaster Ian Pelham Turner pointed to the manner of the entry itself. "He was obviously feeling very aggrieved by the police entering his home at eight in the morning and the world's press finding out at 8:05," Turner told Fox News Digital. Turner also asked whether King Charles III had been told in advance and whether the early hour and swift publicity were intended to humiliate a man long said to have treated police with contempt. The record contains no statement from the King on the warrant litigation, and no police answer to Turner's suggestion of motive.