Police Feared Prince Andrew Would Hinder Search by Claiming Home Belonged to King Charles
Legal documents reveal Thames Valley Police's concern that Prince Andrew might have used his familial connection to delay access to his property during an investigation.
Thames Valley Police expressed concerns that Prince Andrew might have attempted to impede officers' entry into his Sandringham home by asserting it belonged to King Charles, according to newly released legal documents. Senior officers feared that such a claim could lead to arguments that separate legal permission would be required, thereby delaying the search and potentially compromising evidence.
The background to Prince Andrew's arrest in February emerged in legal documents filed as police sought warrants to search his properties. Lawyers for Prince Andrew successfully argued in court last week that these warrants were unlawful. His arrest followed the U.S. Department of Justice's release of materials detailing his connections to Jeffrey Epstein. Prince Andrew has denied any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein.
On February 18, Thames Valley Police requested warrants from the Central Criminal Court to search Wood Farm in Sandringham and Royal Lodge in Windsor. The application outlined scenarios where search warrants would be necessary to guarantee access. Police were concerned that Prince Andrew or his legal team might demand "judicial authority" before granting entry. They specifically worried that claims of the Sandringham Estate being King Charles's property could lead to a protracted process of securing a separate right of access.
Such delays, police argued, would "frustrate the nature and purpose of the search." Additional concerns included the possibility of no one being present at the property and the risk of attracting media attention while being unable to enter. The police contended that any of these delays could prevent the collection of crucial evidence, particularly given the "gravity of this investigation."
The documents detailed the specific types of information police sought, including "paper-work, diaries, business records or other documentary evidence of AMW's [Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's] time as Special Representative for Trade and Investment." They also sought evidence related to any actions, communications, or comments following the FBI's release of materials concerning Jeffrey Epstein, especially concerning Prince Andrew's awareness of Thames Valley Police's assessment of his ties to the sex offender. Electronic devices such as mobile phones and computers were also targeted.
The search of Royal Lodge, Prince Andrew's former Windsor home, reportedly continued until February 24. His police interview at Aylesham Police Station began on February 19 and concluded with his release under investigation later that day.
Legal documents indicate police interest stemmed from claims that during his tenure as a UK trade envoy, Prince Andrew allegedly forwarded official reports from visits to Singapore, Vietnam, China, and Hong Kong to Jeffrey Epstein. Emails from Epstein's files also suggested Prince Andrew briefed Epstein on investment opportunities in Afghanistan and allegedly mentioned meetings with a private investment firm, suggesting Epstein might invest.
The emergence of these documents follows a High Court hearing where Thames Valley Police conceded that the warrants used to search Prince Andrew's homes were unlawful. Prince Andrew's lawyers had utilized a judicial review to successfully challenge the actions of the force's chief constable and the Central Criminal Court. While the court initially granted warrants under one section of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, a subsequent legal challenge established that warrants should have been issued under a different section. Items seized during the raid are still held by the police, with a further hearing scheduled for 2027 to determine if the material can be used as evidence. The criminal investigation into Prince Andrew remains ongoing.