Latest / THE DAILY BRIEF / Police accept Andrew search warrants were unlawful

Transcript

Police accept Andrew search warrants were unlawful · THE DAILY BRIEF

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: And Thames Valley Police has accepted... that the search warrants
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: it applied for to search Andrew Mountbatten Windsor's homes were unlawful. Well,
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: there was a High Court hearing which took place this
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: afternoon and it's just wrapped up. And the force have,
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: in that hearing, accepted that the information given to the
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: Old Bailey about warrants relating to their decision to search
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: the former Prince Andrew Sandringham home as well as Royal
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: Lodge in Windsor was not correct. Well, just to recap,
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: of course, on the timeline of this case, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was,
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: of course, arrested by Thames Valley Police in February on
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: suspicion of misconduct in public office, a charge he denies.
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: And search warrants were issued before his arrest, and his
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: lawyers are challenging, have been challenging, the lawfulness of those warrants,
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: using a judicial review to challenge the actions of the
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: Chief Constable of the Force and the Central Police. criminal court. Well,
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: I'm joined in the studio by legal expert Danny Shaw,
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: former BBC correspondent as well. Danny, what do you make
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: of this then? So this breaking news that Thames Valley
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: Police has accepted that those search warrants were unlawful.
• 1:19
  Speaker 2: Well, very interesting development, surprising development. We were expecting a
• 1:22
  Speaker 2: sort of lengthier courtroom battle over this. It sounds to
• 1:25
  Speaker 2: me as though Thames Valley Police has folded the has
• 1:30
  Speaker 2: decided that they would rather sort of cave in and
• 1:33
  Speaker 2: accept that than go through some lengthy court proceedings, whether
• 1:37
  Speaker 2: that's also intended as a way of ensuring that some
• 1:42
  Speaker 2: key information that they have doesn't become public because they
• 1:46
  Speaker 2: were resisting attempts to make certain court documents publicly available
• 1:52
  Speaker 2: to the press and to others. Whether that's also part
• 1:55
  Speaker 2: of their decision in accepting this, I don't know. but
• 1:59
  Speaker 2: very significant announcement. It now brings into question whether any
• 2:04
  Speaker 2: of the evidence or material that they have gathered as
• 2:07
  Speaker 2: a result of those searches can be relied on by
• 2:11
  Speaker 2: the police. Can they carry on holding it and using
• 2:14
  Speaker 2: it as part of their investigation, or have they got
• 2:17
  Speaker 2: to hand it back? And I think that will probably
• 2:20
  Speaker 2: be determined by you know, how much of a breach
• 2:25
  Speaker 2: this is. Was it a technical breach by Thames Valley
• 2:28
  Speaker 2: Police in terms of the information they gave to the court?
• 2:32
  Speaker 2: Were there some minor details that were wrong or was
• 2:35
  Speaker 2: it substantively wrong information?
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: And, Danny, I mean, the key thing you said there
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: is it could mean that evidence obtained in those searches,
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: which it's now been declared were unlawful, or the search
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: warrants were, You're saying that some of that evidence could
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: be returned. How could that affect the entire case?
• 2:56
  Speaker 2: Well, I think that scenario would happen if the mistakes
• 3:02
  Speaker 2: that they made were so egregious and conducted in bad
• 3:07
  Speaker 2: faith that the court would say, you've got to hand
• 3:11
  Speaker 2: that material back that you acquired through the searches. My...
• 3:16
  Speaker 2: guess is that that's probably not the case and that
• 3:18
  Speaker 2: Thames Valley Police has accepted that they've got things wrong
• 3:21
  Speaker 2: here and that this is perhaps part of their decision-making
• 3:27
  Speaker 2: behind this, is that they will be able to reapply
• 3:30
  Speaker 2: for search warrants again in order to get the material
• 3:34
  Speaker 2: that they need. But it obviously does delay the process.
• 3:37
  Speaker 2: It's hugely embarrassing for Thames Valley Police right now. This
• 3:41
  Speaker 2: is one of the most high-profile Police investigations that that
• 3:45
  Speaker 2: force has ever conducted, if not the most high profile,
• 3:49
  Speaker 2: investigating a member of the royal family, arresting him, searching
• 3:55
  Speaker 2: his property and his former property. And they have made
• 3:58
  Speaker 2: a terrible mistake, a blunder, in giving the wrong information
• 4:02
  Speaker 2: to a court in order to apply for warrants to
• 4:05
  Speaker 2: search his address. It's deeply embarrassing for them.
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: And I've got some more details of what we heard
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: from the royal family. court hearing, Mr Justice Hilliard saying
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: that agreement was reached between the claimant and Thames Valley
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: Police that the search warrants were unlawful. Crucially, I'm just
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: seeing this. It's just coming into us now. The judge
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: also said that the fact that the search warrants were
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: quashed does not bring an investigation forward. to an end,
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: all mean that the whole of the investigation was unlawful.
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: So that, in essence, answering that question that I was
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: asking you that many of our viewers would want to know.
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: So it doesn't change the nature of the investigation necessarily, Danny.
• 4:51
  Speaker 2: No, the investigation can continue. The allegations are still being
• 4:55
  Speaker 2: looked into. Police may have a lot of other evidence
• 4:58
  Speaker 2: that they're looking into or other material that wasn't gleaned
• 5:02
  Speaker 2: from the searches. I think the question is what happens
• 5:05
  Speaker 2: to the material that they have seized during those searches?
• 5:09
  Speaker 2: Does that have to be bagged up, put into lorries
• 5:13
  Speaker 2: and taken back to Andrew and to his property? Or
• 5:16
  Speaker 2: do the police simply have to go to court again
• 5:20
  Speaker 2: with a fresh search warrant or a warrant to keep
• 5:23
  Speaker 2: that property and ensure that it's done properly this time?
• 5:28
  Speaker 2: In which case it's a bit of a an administrative
• 5:31
  Speaker 2: task and a bit of a delay, but nothing more
• 5:34
  Speaker 2: serious than that. But crucially, yes, the investigation continues as
• 5:37
  Speaker 2: the judge has made clear. But the two parties have
• 5:41
  Speaker 2: reached an agreement. Rather than letting this go to judicial
• 5:44
  Speaker 2: review and court proceedings, Thames Valley Police has accepted that
• 5:48
  Speaker 2: it's got things wrong. It must have seen the weight
• 5:50
  Speaker 2: of the case presented against it. So this is a
• 5:55
  Speaker 2: victory of sorts, if you like, for Andrew. There's no
• 5:58
  Speaker 2: doubt about that. And it's a little warning to the
• 6:01
  Speaker 2: police that they've got to get things absolutely spot on. Otherwise,
• 6:05
  Speaker 2: they will have Andrew and his legal team on their case.
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: I'm just going to recap for viewers who might just
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: be tuning in what exactly has come out of the
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: court just now, Danny. So Thames Valley Police has accepted...
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: that the search warrants it applied for to search Andrew
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: Mountbatten Windsor's homes were unlawful. Of course, you may remember
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: his arrest earlier this year in February. Well, this case
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: was heard at the High Court this afternoon. And the
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: force accepted that the information given to the Old Bailey
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: about warrants relating to their decision to search the former
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: Prince Andrew's Sandringham home and Royal Lodge in Windsor was
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: not correct. Now, again, as I said, then, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: was arrested by Thames Valley Police back in February. on
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: suspicion of misconduct in public office. And I'll just read
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: out more that we've got from the court as well.
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: At the hearing, which I should say Andrew did not attend,
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: Mr Justice Hilliard said... that agreement was reached between the
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: claimant and Thames Valley Police that the search warrants were unlawful.
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: But the judge also said, and I'll just pick this
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: up again with Danny Shaw, who joins me in the studio,
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: that the fact that search warrants were quashed does not
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: bring an investigation to an end or mean that the
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: whole of the investigation was unlawful. Danny, back to you
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: on this. We were talking earlier before we got this
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: decision about how common... this sort of legal precedent is.
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: How often in these cases do people challenge the police
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: over search warrants? It's something that's happened in other Ho-Pro cases,
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: hasn't it? Yes.
• 7:54
  Speaker 2: And I mentioned before the former football manager, Harry Redknapp,
• 7:58
  Speaker 2: who was questioned some years ago and his property was
• 8:03
  Speaker 2: searched and he took the police to court and won
• 8:06
  Speaker 2: that court case because the searches that were carried out
• 8:09
  Speaker 2: weren't done in accordance with the law. And then we
• 8:12
  Speaker 2: We talked about Operation Midland in 2015, a very high-profile
• 8:17
  Speaker 2: investigation into an alleged Westminster paedophile ring. Lord Bramall, Harvey
• 8:22
  Speaker 2: Proctor and Lady Britain, widow of Lord Britain, their properties
• 8:28
  Speaker 2: were all searched in a very public way. A review
• 8:31
  Speaker 2: was then conducted by a former judge, Sir Richard Henriquez,
• 8:37
  Speaker 2: and he found... that the district judge who granted those
• 8:40
  Speaker 2: search warrants have been misled and in fact have been
• 8:45
  Speaker 2: supplied with factual inaccuracies on which to grant those search warrants.
• 8:50
  Speaker 2: So we can see that in high profile cases, when
• 8:52
  Speaker 2: a spotlight is shone on the process of applying for
• 8:57
  Speaker 2: and granting search warrants, failings have been identified.
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: We just had a statement, Danny, from Thames Valley Police.
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: It's quite dense. I wonder if you could help us
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: make sense of some of it. Now, it begins by
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: going back to the 22nd of July. It says, on
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: the 22nd of July, the High Court quashed search warrants
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: granted on the 18th of February 2026 for two properties
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: in Norfolk and Berkshire, of course, Royal Lodge and Sandringham
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: they're referring to there, which were searched as part of
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: Thames Valley Police's ongoing investigation into into misconduct in public
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: office by a man in his 60s from Norfolk. The
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: agreement that led to the quashing of the warrants relates
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: specifically to a decision made by the court regarding the
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: legal basis for these and is not a judgment on
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: our ongoing investigation. The statement continues, we ensured the court
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: was presented with all the necessary information and paperwork to
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: inform their decision following the corrects legal processes throughout. We
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: accept the position that the initial court's decision to issue
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: warrants under the specific piece of legislation used was incorrect.
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: and therefore these must be legally quashed. I'm going to
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: stop there because there's a lot of legalese in there, Danny,
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: and that's why we've got you in the studio. What
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: do you make of that so far?
• 10:20
  Speaker 2: Well, the first bit that you said was that the
• 10:22
  Speaker 2: High Court quashed the warrants on the 22nd of July,
• 10:26
  Speaker 2: I think. So that's over two months ago, and that's
• 10:29
  Speaker 2: not something that we knew about.
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: So this is the first time we've known that that
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: was public?
• 10:33
  Speaker 2: Yeah, this is the first time that we've been told
• 10:35
  Speaker 2: that those search warrants were actually overturned by the High Court. Now,
• 10:41
  Speaker 2: there'll be a reason that we don't know about that.
• 10:43
  Speaker 2: I'm presuming that there was a complete ban on publishing
• 10:48
  Speaker 2: that information back at the end of July. Why would
• 10:50
  Speaker 2: that be? I can only presume that Thames Valley Police
• 10:54
  Speaker 2: asked the court for some kind of restriction on that
• 10:58
  Speaker 2: while their investigation continued. But that is something that, you know,
• 11:02
  Speaker 2: clearly it's really important to get to the We have
• 11:05
  Speaker 2: a principle in this country of open justice, decisions that
• 11:09
  Speaker 2: are made by courts, orders that are made by courts,
• 11:12
  Speaker 2: evidence that's supplied to the courts in these types of
• 11:15
  Speaker 2: cases should be publicly available. So we need to understand
• 11:19
  Speaker 2: why that decision from over two months ago, quashing the
• 11:23
  Speaker 2: search warrants, wasn't made public then. But what Thames Valley
• 11:28
  Speaker 2: Police appear to be saying is that they accept that
• 11:32
  Speaker 2: the search warrants were, you know, had been obtained unlawfully
• 11:38
  Speaker 2: because they'd issued incorrect information. Therefore, the legal basis for
• 11:42
  Speaker 2: them doesn't stand. But what they're not saying is our
• 11:46
  Speaker 2: investigation has come to an end. They say the investigation
• 11:50
  Speaker 2: absolutely remains ongoing. And what I think the implication of
• 11:56
  Speaker 2: that is, is that they feel that they can still
• 11:59
  Speaker 2: somehow see the material that or obtain the material that
• 12:03
  Speaker 2: they need to obtain from his premises if necessary.
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: Danny, do stay with us. I mean, just a bit
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: more of that statement from Thames Valley Police. It says,
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: our investigation into alleged misconduct in public office by a
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: man in his 60s from Norfolk remains ongoing. We continue
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: to pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry to effectively and
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: fairly progress this investigation. And of course, as we said before,
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, of course, we haven't had a statement from
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: his legal team following all of this, but he, of course,
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: strenuously denies the allegations as that investigation continues.