The Duke of York may be out, but the litigation claimant is in. Stripped of his royal titles and his dukedom last October, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has gone from pariah to a significant public-law litigant having launched judicial review proceedings against Thames Valley Police and the Central Criminal Court following his birthday arrest.
The first round lands before Mr Justice Hilliard in the High Court at 2pm on Thursday 8 October.
The proceeding starts behind closed doors as Andrew’s goal is to quash search warrants issued by an Old Bailey judge on 18 February, which authorised searches of his home on the Sandringham estate and of Royal Lodge, his former Windsor residence.
The warrants were granted the day before police arrested him on his 66th birthday on suspicion of misconduct in public office. He spent 11 hours in custody, was interviewed under caution and was released under investigation.
The allegations concern whether he passed sensitive material to Jeffrey Epstein during his decade as UK trade envoy, which he denies.
The detailed grounds haven’t been made public, and Thames Valley Police says only that it is “engaged in legal proceedings in relation to warrants.” Essentially the claim asks the Administrative Court whether the warrants were lawfully sought and lawfully granted. Warrant challenges of this kind typically turn on the safeguards in sections 15 and 16 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and on what the police told the issuing judge.
Andrew’s long-standing solicitor Gary Bloxsome of Blackfords, (left) the so-called ‘good news Gary’ who is one of Britain’s highesst earning and best known criminal lawyers, has been advising him since at least 2020. Bloxsome was instructed after the arrest alongside Jennifer Richardson and Matrix Chambers silk Clare Montgomery KC. Neither Andrew nor his lawyers have confirmed who is running the review.
Anyone hoping a win would bring the whole case down is likely to be disappointed. Nick Vamos of Peters & Peters, a former head of special crime at the CPS, has pointed out that even quashed warrants don’t automatically mean the evidence goes back.
Police can apply to the Crown Court to keep seized material, and the investigation could still proceed unaffected.
Thursday’s private session concerns an application by Thames Valley Police to restrict access to court documents, a familiar move in warrant challenges, where the information behind a warrant application is often sensitive. The courts have approved closed procedures for exactly this situation.
Then there’s the bill. Andrew still receives an undisclosed annual stipend from the King’s private funds, but a Palace source has made clear none of it may go on this litigation. The Palace had already ruled out the taxpayer after the arrest. With the case reportedly likely to cost hundreds of thousands of pounds and to run for months, the former prince faces an expensive fight entirely on his own coin.
