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?

I know that it happens all the time. I was meaning it’ll have a huge negative impact on their popularity if, after the whole protecting him thing, he then walks away on a convenient technicality.

I think the RF would prefer it to run its course legally (without help) now that the decision to arrest him was made. Otherwise it reflects on them even if they have no involvement

It is crazy that such a high profile warrant was done without being checked repeatedly.

its too stupid to be a deliberate cover up thing imo. That would be lost evidence or him having prior knowledge so he could get rid of things.

this just screams incompetence

Call me conspiratorial but how can the Police fail to cross every t and dot every i before rocking up at Andrews house? Could this be a deliberate blunder?

Honestly I’m not surprised at the blunder.

id not done many criminal cases, and I retired due to ill health a long time ago, but every one I did there were technicality issues, warrants, confessions, procedures, disclosures. You name it.

But I’d have thought being so high profile they’d have been more careful. Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t.

Maybe? Who knows how it will play with the general public?

Sadly, there are an awful lot of people who haven’t read ‘Entitled’ who still seem to think that “poor” AMW is being used as a scapegoat for powerful men in the USA who were even more embroiled with Epstein. And that the RF are “easy” targets.

They seem to be under the illusion that all he did was have a bit of “playboy fun” and fiddle with his expenses.

When in fact the Epsten files suggest that AMW, even leaving aside his alleged abuse of vulnerable women, was involved with Epstein for a lot longer than he admitted to in the Newsnight interview, it’s alleged by the BBC and others that AMW sent Epstein and other unauthorised businessmen, reports from official overseas visits, along with confidential details about investment opportunities, to allegedly profit himself and them, while serving as TE and therefore bound by the rules of public service.

And the RF have used their considerable wealth (£12 million to VG for a start) and influence to cover up this scandal for over 15 years!

I make no apologies for repeating this as his alleged crimes were very serious and contrary to the UK’s best interests. He can’t be allowed to get away with it. And the cover up needs to be exposed too but won’t be because it’s too close to the crown.

Where I do agree is that everyone wants a fair trial.

Thank you Constantrunner.

I was meaning it’ll have a huge negative impact on their popularity if, after the whole protecting him thing, he then walks away on a convenient technicality

I honestly do get that view, @JustAnotherWhinger, though expect a lot will depend on how folk expected this to pan out - and since some of us have said from the start that there's no way Andrew would ever be allowed anywhere near a court the rest follows from that

It's true that Andrew walking away wouldn't look good, but no matter how objectionable some find this what are they going to DO about it? Parliament will say - already have - that it's a "family matter" and go right on refusing discussions, the family will claim once again that they "didn't know", and huge numbers won't care either way and forget the passing headlines very soon

It’s discussed here at the start

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0032frd?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

TV news say police made two RIPA applications. One using the legislation they did which limits the evidence they can seize and one using legis lation that allows them to seize more extensive evidence. The judge granted the one that allows them to collect limited evidence, but the search seized more extensive evidence.

Most documents to do with Andrew being a trade envoy would be excluded from the limited RIPA application. But the police might have made both so they could at least get a limited search approved, which is what the judge did.

I fear the more extensive evidence may be excluded from the court as this is not just a technicality as originally described. If this happens the investigation will say they found no evidence if his wrong doing as a trade envoy, because relevant evidence will have been excluded.

There must be more evidence available to the investigation than just what they could find in AMW’s possession though surely?

I can’t believe the whole case rests on that one part of the investigation?

There must be digital records that can still be accessed and witnesses etc.

They will have required some existing evidence to apply for a search. But there may or may not be enough evidence without the evidence on the search. The main evidence is probably digital, maybe erased but recovered, on his digital devices.

In a situation like this where the warrant is clearly wrong, it is perfectly normal for the police and the subject of the warrant to reach an agreement. The courts far prefer it if they do as it saves time and money.

As per my previous post, it doesn't automatically rule out the evidence collected by the police. Whether it can be used is at the discretion of the court if Andrew is charged with something.

Errors are made in search warrants. In this case, the police applied under sections 8 and 9 of PACE and the court incorrectly only granted them under section 8. This was a mistake by the court as the police wanted material that is classed as "excluded" or "special procedure" under PACE, so section 9 was needed. It is poor by the court, but not that surprising.

And no, the last paragraph does not kick things into the long grass nor lead to endless wrangling over technicalities. It is now open to Andrew to question whether the police can retain the evidence they collected. The court today allowed them to do so on the grounds that they would have had access if the warrant had been issued correctly. Since this is material that brings in section 9, there are some additional tests they have to pass. The hearing next year will be to decide whether they have passed those tests and will be allowed to retain the material.

Well said.

I suppose AMW knows that his 'popularity' is shot with the public so he doesn't care anymore, he just doesn't want to be under investigation and also thinks he is totally innocent. If he takes money from the public purse via suing TVP, he will be a pariah.
I agree there are a lot of people who haven't a clue how disgusting AMW and ex wife actually were. They are liars. They misappropriated charitable funds. They treated the little people like shit. They actually broke people. Add in treasonous acts by AMW.

Really? You think the judge deliberately got it wrong? Highly unlikely.

Unpopular opinion incoming, but the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act gives investigating authorities immense powers over private citizens - not just search warrants, but also tapping phones, covert recordings, using covert (undercover) human intelligence sources etc. In return for those powers, it has a tightly controlled and audited process for getting permission to use them.

The Police are slapdash in complying with that process all the time, in all sorts of cases. Most people impacted don’t have the knowledge or resources to realise this, or challenge them. Andrew’s team obviously have both. And the Police force here have had to admit their error - they are bang to rights on this. All the evidence illegally obtained should be excluded - that is the standard consequence for this. If we can’t trust the Police to follow due process, their investigations are unsafe. That’s a much bigger problem than just Andrew.

This is massively embarrassing for the TVP. Massively, to cock up so badly in such a high profile investigation. You would think they would dot every i and cross every t, but clearly they were complacent.

I wouldn’t read much into it.

Perhaps like me they have other things to do and their time is limited to particular interests within the RF.

I hope AMW gets what he deserves but apart from that I’ve no interest in him.

I have made a more recent comment where I say something different. Not sure why you have picked on this?

Interesting theory, that you commit misfeasance in public office while investigating misfeasance in public office. 🤣

This does not smell deliberate to me. There are far, far easier and less embarrassing ways to scupper an investigation than having to publiclly admit you have exceeded your powers!

@Serenster it's the search they got it wrong, not the RIPA. They made two applications and only one was approved.
I think the seized evidence that is special material will be excluded. Which will consist of nearly everything to do with prince Andrew being a trade envoy. Which means Andrew will be able to say the police have not found evidence to prosecute. Which he will fraim as being innocent.

it's the search they got it wrong, not the RIPA. They made two applications and only one was approved.

Yes, but if they have purported to conduct a search relying on a power granted under RIPA that they were not granted, they have breached RIPA.

@Serenster I understand that.
Although I understand as special material was excluded they could never legally seize the relevant evidence related to prince Andrews activities as a trade envoy.

Can you explain why? It seems to me that in this whole affair Andrew is being protected less by the fact he is a member of the royal family but more by the fact he was working for the government. So I have questions but no legal knowledge.

Can they obtain documents directly from the government to prosecute him with?
Has someone in the civil service mucked this up deliberately as a way of hiding who decided using Andrew in this post was a good idea even after they had been warned by his brother about the pitfalls?
I cannot believe there is no evidence of his financial irregularities available, he doesn't strike me as someone who would be particularly good at covering up for himself, assuming he even recognised that he was using the post for his own advantage which given his sense of entitlement might not be the case.

It's all very frustrating, I didn't have much hope that he would be prosecuted but I did think the police would at least get the procedure correct.

@Serenster They have been allowed to keep the info and equipment they took though. The BBC tended to think the info could be used once the court agreed with the right application submitted. Well expert on R5. Personally I think it should all be given back because it was taken illegally. If it makes no difference that they didn’t apply legally I can see why the correct application was overlooked. It wasn’t really necessary because no one checks and the police do what they want.

Very disappointing BUT at least the police still seem to be pursuing the case so let's wait and see....

For clarity, it appears on the information available that the police's application for a warrant was correct, but the judge got it wrong by granting it under section 8 of PACE only instead of both sections 8 and 9.