Judge says search warrants used to seize property from former

Police questioned Mountbatten-Windsor for 11 hours before releasing him under investigation, meaning he was neither charged nor exonerated.

Source: New York Post
3 min read
NRT Commentary · Opinion

That’s eleven hours of interrogation for a man who walked out the door with no charges filed. Search warrants were signed, property was seized, and at the end of the day the state had nothing to hold on to. Mountbatten-Windsor isn't exonerated, but he isn't charged either.

Commentary is separate from the original publisher's reporting.

Judge says search warrants used to seize property from former
Image via New York Post

Police who searched the properties of the former Prince Andrew and seized his property in the investigation into his links to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein have agreed the search warrants were unlawful, a London judge said Thursday.

Justice Nicholas Hilliard said that the Thames Valley Police had made a significant error in applying for the warrants when they searched the properties of the former prince now known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.

Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested on Feb. 19 on suspicion of misconduct in public office, and police searched two of his homes. His lawyers asked the High Court judge to invalidate the warrants under which those searches were conducted.

Hilliard said the parties had agreed to invalidate the warrants before the hearing Thursday.

Thames Valley Police said it had accepted the fact that the warrants must be quashed because the initial court’s decision to issue them was incorrect.

“Legal proceedings are currently ongoing to decide how material seized during the searches will be managed and whether we can lawfully retain it in support of our ongoing investigation,” the department said in a statement.”

Mountbatten-Windsor was not in court for the hearing.

Mark Stephens, of the Howard Kennedy law firm in London, described the hearing as a preliminary skirmish in the broader legal battle.

“It’s the first step of Prince Andrew and his lawyers saying, ‘Actually, this is tainted evidence. It was obtained inappropriately,”’ Stephens said. “Therefore it should be excluded from any criminal trial.”

King Charles III stripped Mountbatten-Windsor of his princely title last year as he sought to shield the rest of the royal family from the continuing fallout from his younger brother’s links to Epstein.

While Mountbatten-Windsor, 66, continues to receive a stipend from the king’s private funds, Buckingham Palace has made it clear that those funds may not be used to fund his effort to challenge the search warrants.

The police investigation initially focused on allegations that Mountbatten-Windsor shared sensitive information with Epstein when the former prince was a U.K. trade envoy, but police later said they could also consider other matters.

Police questioned Mountbatten-Windsor for 11 hours before releasing him under investigation, meaning he was neither charged nor exonerated.

It was the first time in nearly four centuries that a senior British royal was placed under arrest.

The allegations against Mountbatten-Windsor came to light when the U.S. Justice Department released millions of pages of documents from its investigation into sex trafficking by Epstein and his connections to a network of wealthy, powerful men around the world.

Mountbatten-Windsor’s ties to Epstein have been a source of embarrassment to the royal family for more than a decade.

Lawmakers questioned the relationship as far back as 2011, when the then-prince was forced to give up his globetrotting role as the U.K.’s special trade envoy. Eight years later, he failed to explain his continuing ties to Epstein in a disastrous interview with the BBC, ending his career as a working member of the royal family.

Original source:

Read at New York Post

How We See It

New Republican Times Editorial Board

That’s eleven hours of interrogation for a man who walked out the door with no charges filed. Search warrants were signed, property was seized, and at the end of the day the state had nothing to hold on to. Mountbatten-Windsor isn't exonerated, but he isn't charged either. He's just stuck in that limbo where your name is dragged through the mud and the law gets to take its sweet time figuring out if it even has a case.

The real problem here isn't the police work. It's that the entire process is stacked to let the suspicion hang in the air indefinitely. They get to seize your things, question you for the better part of a day, and then tell you to wait. No trial, no exoneration, just a permanent asterisk next to your reputation. That's not justice. That's a tool of coercion, and it's getting more common by the day.

We hear a lot about protecting the accused, but the practical reality is that the burden of proof has quietly shifted onto the citizen. You have to prove you're innocent of the rumor, not the other way around. For all the talk about due process, the system is perfectly content to try you in the court of public opinion while the legal machinery grinds along at its own pace. This case may be about one man's property, but it’s a stark reminder that the state's power to inconvenience you isn't a small thing. It’s the whole ballgame.

Commentary written with AI assistance by the New Republican Times Editorial Board.