In February, Prince Andrew was detained and arrested at Marsh Farm in Sandringham, the Windsors’ private estate. Andrew had been moved to Sandringham in February, following widespread outrage over the Epstein Files’ release. Thames Valley Police officers executed search warrants in Norfolk and at Andrew’s former home, Royal Lodge. Andrew was arrested and taken to the police station for hours. He was chauffeured back to Marsh Farm by his bodyguards that same day (well, it was the evening). It was a big deal, even though nothing much has come of it since then. The police are still investigating all of Andrew’s connections to Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and various shady characters. Well, now Andrew is… suing the Thames Valley Police?

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has launched legal action against Thames Valley Police over his arrest in relation to the Epstein files, The Telegraph can reveal. The former Duke of York, who was detained in a blaze of publicity eight months ago, has asked a judge to determine whether the force’s action towards him was lawful.

He has lodged a judicial review in connection with the search warrants that allowed police to raid his home on the Sandringham Estate and his former residence at Royal Lodge in Windsor. It is the first time a member of the Royal family has challenged the lawfulness of criminal proceedings against them since the trial of Charles I in 1649. The former prince was arrested in February at Marsh Farm in Norfolk on his 66th birthday. After being driven to Aylsham Police Station, about 40 miles away, he was questioned for almost 12 hours on suspicion of misconduct in public office, before eventually being released under investigation.

Detectives also spent days searching Marsh Farm and Royal Lodge, removing documents and other items as part of the investigation. But it is understood his legal team is keen to examine whether the search warrants – granted by an Old Bailey judge following an application from Thames Valley Police – were lawful.

Mr Mountbatten-Windsor asked for permission to judicially review the decision earlier this year and his application was subsequently granted by a High Court judge.

The Telegraph has learnt there is to be a private hearing at the High Court later this week to determine whether to release certain court documents relating to the judicial review.

Mr Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest followed the publication of material in the Epstein files suggesting he may have shared sensitive information with the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein when he was the UK’s trade envoy between 2001 and 2011. It was alleged Mr Mountbatten-Windsor forwarded reports to Epstein about visits he made to Hong Kong, Singapore, Vietnam and China and allegedly sent him a confidential briefing note on investment opportunities in Afghanistan’s Helmand province.

He is being investigated on suspicion of misconduct in public office, a notoriously complex common law offence that covers public officials who abuse their power for some sort of advantage. But there are claims the police investigation is in grave difficulty after the US department of justice refused to hand over the unredacted versions of the Epstein files. A formal letter of request for access to the relevant material could take more than a year to respond to, with no guarantee the US authorities will comply.

Meanwhile, friends of Mr Mountbatten-Windsor have said he feels he is “living in limbo” as he waits for the long-running investigation to conclude.

[From The Telegraph]

From what I can tell of the British legal system, Andrew does have the right to question the validity of the search warrants. But! It feels like the police would have very valid arguments to quash whatever Andrew is doing here. The biggest argument: the investigation is still ongoing. Andrew’s lawyers can nitpick this or that, they can cry about how Andrew is living in limbo or whatever, but the fact remains that there is a lot of evidence of Andrew’s degeneracy and criminal behavior, and there are multiple investigations and they are all ongoing. “The search warrant is invalid because I don’t like it” isn’t a legal argument. Or at least, I hope that isn’t a legal argument.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.