Do you think Andrew will face any criminal charges?

[LotsInCommon]

I’m only now reading Virginias book and it’s a very difficult read.

It’s 7 months on from Andrews arrest for misconduct in public office. Do you think he will be charged with anything to do with that? Do you think he’ll be charged with sexual abuse and rape?

They have been badly let down by the court issuing the warrants incorrectly.

I hope the case about the evidence absolutely allows evidence to stand if it’s evidence of criminal behaviour.

If they can show the warrants should/would have been issued under section 9 and it was simply the courts mistake then they absolutely should be allowed to make use of their finds.

Just catching up with the latest news and trying to understand it. IANAL either!

Very disappointing!

https://news.sky.com/story/andrew-mountbatten-windsor-and-thames-valley-police-agreed-warrants-to-raid-two-properties-were-unlawful-13596139

Excuse my ignorance but why is the wording as it is …

“… Mr Justice Hilliard said that "agreement was reached between the claimant and Thames Valley Police that the search warrants were unlawful".

Why were AMW’s lawyers and the TVP “agreeing” to anything? Why wasn’t the judge ruling it? Or is it that he did rule it and the negotiation came afterwards?

If I have this right then AMW’s lawyers were challenging both the court and the police? But if the court made the mistake; it shouldn’t automatically rule out the evidence should it?

I find it strange that such a basic error should be made in such a high profile case? Won’t those warrants have been checked and double checked?

I’m afraid the following paragraph smacks of pushing the investigation in to the long grass… endless wrangling over technicalities … maybe until William takes the throne in the hope that it’s all forgotten about?

“Police have launched a bid to retain evidence gathered during the searches, which the judge said is opposed by Andrew, with a hearing to be held in private in 2027”.

Apparently the wrong legislation was quoted. This is a very basic mistake and one that should never be made.

Yes in theory it can mean the evidence collected can not be used in court. But a court has to decide this. But technical breaches would normally not be a good enough reason, as long as there were lawful means for the RIPA.

Why were AMW’s lawyers and the TVP “agreeing” to anything? Why wasn’t the judge ruling it? Or is it that he did rule it and the negotiation came afterwards?

If I have this right then AMW’s lawyers were challenging both the court and the police? But if the court made the mistake; it shouldn’t automatically rule out the evidence should it?

Yoiu're not alone, @Chocolatethumbprints; I don't pretend any legal knowledge either, but the same thing occurred to me

In any case, if the wrong legislation was used in applying for the warrant, why wasn't this pointed out at the time?

I don't know if many of Mumsnet's staunch monarchists are missing from the thread because they find these things are unpalatable or because there seems no answer which paints the RF in a good light, but it's nevertheless very noticeable

Don't know if I count as a 'staunch monarchist', @Puzzledandpissedoff. I hadn't joined this thread as I assumed it was a duplicate of the AMW threads which I'm already following.
I came to read it today when you referenced a legal poster commenting on this thread.

WRT the comment earlier on the thread about innocent people being unlikely suicide risks, I would refer posters to yet another death in relation to the Epstein saga that happened recently:
Suicide of whistleblower
Hardly reported, of course, especially as the only AMW connection was a potential deal that didn't actually take place.

Don't know if I count as a 'staunch monarchist'

I wouldn't have said so, @bluegreygreen; as others have pointed out before you're far too logical and balanced, with a distinct inclination to use facts rather than silly media tittle tattle

The Court Order is here

Justice Hilliard Order

From what a lawyer on the news was saying I think the negotiation (which was more like a discussion and acceptance) over the agreement was because it was just a simple legal fact that it was incorrect.

A bit like there being no point in them putting the case to a judge that it’s Wednesday when it’s in fact a Thursday. It’s just accepted that it was an error and they all move on to the next bit rather than waste the judges time with that bit.

Therefore the judge could move on to looking at the issue of the evidence obtained in said searches.

"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." BBC today.

That doesn’t look great. Why did he feel the need to go to court over such a bureaucratic detail anyway? I’m assuming he is hoping to remove at least some items from the investigation.

Absolutely not. Chaz wouldn't allow it.
One rule for us one rule for them

He’s clearly hoping that some (probably all in his hope) of the evidence seized will be ruled as unusable.

I think this is why the “he’s not to use the King’s money” stories leaked out recently - they do not want to be associated with his clear attempt to dodge any consequences due to a technicality.

Not staunch but more monarchist-lite checking in to say - I tend to comment on threads when I’ve got something to say or contribute that moves the conversation along.

The problem with the threads about AMW is that there’s nothing to really disagree or debate. He’s awful, it’s a mess, it’s shocking that the police/court have botched the warrants.

And I don’t have any legal expertise so can’t contribute on that side of things.

That makes perfect sense, JustAnotherWhinger, but if it was such an "obvious" error the question remains as to why it wasn't picked up before the warrant was issued in the first place

It's not as if the police decided this for themselves; the court did, and while we all get it wrong sometimes, in such a high profile case I find such a "mistake" surprising

I think this is why the “he’s not to use the King’s money” stories leaked out recently - they do not want to be associated with his clear attempt to dodge any consequences due to a technicality

You could easily be right, @JustAnotherWhinger, though assurances that Charles's money won't be used don't necessarily make it so

Doubtless the RF will be pleased though; the whole saga enabled the claim that "something was being done" about Andrew, and there's now the possibility of the whole thing being made to go away, and the potential exists for a nice payout for Andrew himself

It’s a ridiculous error. There should be a review into that process.

How it was missed that searching the house of someone being accused of misconduct in public office may uncover special privilege documents is akin to missing that a swimming instructor may have towels or a maths teacher may have a calculator.

I know a lot of people will see it as a conspiracy to get him off, but I actually think it’s just indicative of how shoddy the legal system has become. It’s just lazy and having no pride in detail to allow a mistake like this.

We just have to hope that the judge agrees that the warrant that does cover special privileges would have been given and the evidence (of which there must be something or why would AMW bother?) is allowed to stand for use.

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act is here

PACE 1984

The error has been that the original warrant was issued under section 8. This includes:
(1)If on an application made by a constable a justice of the peace is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing—
(d)that it does not consist of or include items subject to legal privilege, excluded material or special procedure material;
This would exclude trade envoy documents subject to the Official Secrets Act.

They should have used section 9, which deals with 'Special provisions as to access'.

ETA crossposted with @JustAnotherWhinger

Thank you. That’s helpful. I think I understand.

But… so many questions… .

I actually don’t think they will be pleased.

I think this is absolutely the worst of all worlds. They eventually accepted they had to go down the something route and the negative impact on their popularity that that drew.

This now looks like he’s chasing a technicality and compensation, despite being guilty (because why else would he object rather than just waiting to be found not guilty) and that will give even more damage to their popularity.

Protecting him as they already did was bad enough in the eye of the public, but actively dodging actual evidence being used because of a technicality will be massive if it happens.

It wouldn’t surprise me at all if some were. Why else would they still be negotiating?

Thanks for posting that. Looks like it was a copy and paste from previous RIPAs rather than thinking through that special material applies. It's a rudimentary error.

I agree very much with this. I know the courts are alarmingly under-resourced and the entire system is creaking, but to make such a ludicrous error in this particular case, which every media outlet globally will be examining, smells a bit fishy to me.

I’m absolutely not one for conspiracy theories but my goodness…. it’s not as though the arrests came particularly swiftly either?

It was reported that AMW had spent much of the Christmas holidays destroying evidence. And the arrest I believe was in the February.

Protecting him as they already did was bad enough in the eye of the public, but actively dodging actual evidence being used because of a technicality will be massive if it happens

But it already does happen, @JustAnotherWhinger; people get off on technicalities all the time, which is why I'd have expected those concerned to make sure this high profile case was watertight

You're right of course that folk will wonder if this was a behind the scenes deal, but perhaps that's a natural consequence of the institution's drive to keep whatever doesn't suit from public view

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/oct/08/search-warrants-used-in-andrew-mountbatten-windsor-raids-were-unlawful-court-rules

It’s being reported as an embarrassing mistake by TVP.

Again, excuse my lack of knowledge, but do the courts issue warrants on the basis of what the police demand specifically and don’t question it? Or do the courts advise the police on which sort of warrant to go for? The police not being legal experts I assume?

The police make the application, and the courts look at it and approve or deny it.
It does smell of deliberate.