Prince Andrew’s judicial review was successful, the search warrants were ‘unlawful’

Strange news out of England today. Earlier this week, we learned that Prince Andrew (Andrew Mountbatten Windsor) asked for a judicial review of the search warrants which were executed on Marsh Farm and Royal Lodge back in February. The review happened today and the judge found in Andrew’s favor. Mostly. Basically, the Thames Valley Police got the wrong kind of warrant, and that’s a technical matter. They evidence gathered from the search warrants is apparently still valid though?

Warrants used by the police to search two properties linked to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, were unlawful, a judge in London said on Thursday.

The judge, Nicholas Hilliard, told the courtroom that the police force responsible for the searches had agreed that a “significant error was made in the application for and the granting of the search warrants” but added that the material collected during those searches might be retained by the police.

The police revealed today that in July, the High Court “quashed search warrants granted on 18 February 2026 for two properties in Norfolk and Berkshire that were searched as part of Thames Valley Police’s ongoing investigation into misconduct in public office by a man in his 60s from Norfolk.” (That man is former Prince Andrew.)

“The agreement that led to the quashing of the warrants relates specifically to a decision made by the court regarding the legal basis for these and is not a judgement on our ongoing investigation,” the Thames Valley Police spokesperson continued. “We ensured the court was presented with all the necessary information and paperwork to inform their decision, following the correct legal processes throughout. We accept the position that the initial court’s decision to issue warrants under the specific piece of legislation used was incorrect and therefore these must be legally quashed.”

It is understood that the Thames Valley Police applied for search warrants under section 8 and section 9 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984. The court determined only section 8 search warrants were needed at the time, but subsequently, in response to a legal challenge (presumably from Andrew), it was determined the searches should have been conducted under section 9 search warrants, which is why they are now “quashed.”

Unlike in the U.S., however, material found from these search warrants will not immediately be thrown out. “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 police note in their statement, reflecting the judge’s ruling that “the fact that the search warrants were quashed does not bring the investigation to an end or mean that the whole of the investigation is unlawful.” The material seized remains in police custody while the decision is pending.

[From The NY Times, Town & Country]

While I was thrilled when Andrew was arrested and the police were crawling all over Marsh Farm and Royal Lodge, I quickly tempered my expectations. Andrew might be the most useful idiot of this entire Jeffrey Epstein-Ghislaine Maxwell crime syndicate. Andrew is the big dummy providing cover for dozens of other predators, but what’s worse is that Andrew is still protected in every larger sense. Everything ends up working out for this lousy degenerate. He’s sitting in a comfortable cottage on a private royal estate, collecting $2 million a year from his brother, the king, and he will never have to face any real repercussions.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

21 Responses to “Prince Andrew’s judicial review was successful, the search warrants were ‘unlawful’”

  1. Ciotog says:

    Nothing’s ever going to happen to this abuser. They can do a legal review in five minutes for him but can’t do a security assessment for the Sussexes even if they’ve had years, apparently.

    • DK says:

      Agree, unfortunately!

      Also, will someone with British legal knowledge explain this to me, because it sounds fishy AF as an outsider.

      If I understand correctly,

      -The police applied for two kinds of warrants
      -The court said they only needed one kind
      -[Presumably they used only that one kind? The excerpt doesn’t say, but maybe I missed it?]
      -Now the court is saying, actually, you needed the other kind, so the search was unlawful

      My questions:
      How is this the police’s fault?
      Isn’t “the court” that determined the incorrect warrant was needed AKA “His Majesty’s Court,” as in, technically the court of the brother king who is paying millions of dollars a year to protect Andrew?
      How is this NOT a wild conspiracy and/or flagrant conflict of interest?

      • BeanieBean says:

        I have the same understanding as you and am as equally confounded. The search was legal at the time, a judge reviewed it & granted it, but you only need this section not that one, and now another judge is saying nope, it was supposed to be that other one after all. 🤷‍♀️🤨

  2. NoBS Please says:

    This is a technicality indeed, in a normal case it shouldn’t derail the inquiry but there’s a risk the already sh*t-scared police retreat even further from prosecuting Paedrew.

    It certainly seems as though the greasy (and sweaty) paedo is slipping further and further away from accountability for his likely sex crimes against teenage girls.

    And it almost seems that Andrew is hitting back – he’s even being referred to more as “former Prince Andrew” than Andrew MW.

    Maybe next he’ll take the King or country to court to claim his titles back?

  3. Brassy Rebel says:

    Abolish the whole damn monarchy. What are you waiting for?

  4. Lorelei says:

    I wish I was surprised.

    And I’ve never seen *any* type of legal issue resolved THAT quickly. Clearly, the fix was in and Andrew knew what the outcome would be. There simply wasn’t enough time for any sort of comprehensive review/investigation.

  5. Charlie says:

    He has nothing to lose. He has the mindset of a lot of wealthy (white) cis males – he is entitled to have everything they want no matter the consequences to others.

  6. Tessa says:

    It looks like he’ll be on those Church walks again. What a disgrace.

  7. Smart&Messy says:

    Nothing is ever enough for these bullies. Can’t he just sit comfortably in his nice cottage, have fun with his friends and enjoy his generous pension??? Why does he feel the need to stick it to everyone that he won’t face any consequences. This review makes no difference in the fact that nothing was going to happen anyway. It just got him a nianiania you’ll never catch me news cycle.

    • Lorelei says:

      I think the root of this inane complaint (or at least a big part of it) was that he was absolutely mortified by that infamous photo of him in the backseat. And the legal system folded to his demands.

  8. Calliope says:

    This is all just spectacularly depressing.

  9. Eurydice says:

    So, the police application included the correct warrant, but the court approved the wrong one? Okay.

  10. Nanea says:

    It seems Paedrew knows too much. Not only about CRex and his many associations with pdfiles, but also about establishment figures like Mandelson.

    I won’t believe for a minute that after all these years of knowing about the sweaty, smarmy Nonce’s lies, Thames Valley Police made any kind of rookie mistakes.

    Wouldn’t it be nice to see the complete, unredacted Epstein Files find their way into the hands of international law enforcement and prosecutors after November 3?

  11. Amy Bee says:

    That was quick. Didn’t Harry judicial review take at least a year? The courts work for an alleged pedo but not for a man who married a black woman.

  12. Lili says:

    i think “the fix is in” i knew he would win since Harry lost the last case this is what it built up to so he is going to get all his privileges back, maybe apart from royal lodge. this is the slow creep back, wouldnt the person who was issuing the warrants know which one they needed before they carried it out. what a colossal f up.

  13. ChillinginDC says:

    I called he’s going to use this whole thing to get back to getting called Prince Andrew and his rightful place (in his eyes) in the public eye.

  14. Hypocrisy says:

    Of course the “King’s Court” sided with the Kings treasonous pedo brother, they have always sided with every royal cover up and they certainly don’t want t this in court because that will bring up the fact that the current king and former Queen knew everything about Andy’s crimes for decades and actively aided him.. the corruption is scary and what the Epstein files have shown up is that corruption is everywhere.

  15. BeanieBean says:

    They requested warrants under Secs 8 & 9, a judge said only Sec 8 was needed, they executed the search, now a different judge is saying no, actually, only Sec 9 was needed. WTF?! 🤷‍♀️ That’s certainly not the police’s fault. Their search was legal at the time–a judge said so, at the time. Truly baffling. I hate everything in the world right now. I need to go watch some baby elephant videos.

  16. JFerber says:

    English courts and newspapers will always side with the abusers, not the victims. Totally sucks.

Commenting Guidelines

Read the article before commenting.

We aim to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy and our privacy policy

Do not engage with trolls, contrarians or rude people. Comment "troll" and we will see it.

Please e-mail the moderators at cbcomments at gmail.com to delete a comment if it's offensive or spam. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please email us to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you!

Leave a comment after you have read the article

Save my name and email in this browser for the next time I comment