Prince Andrew Raids Ruled Unlawful

A judge found warrants used in Epstein-linked raids on Prince Andrew were unlawful.

Balanced

5 left8 center4 right

Updated 3:12pm ET

Every side, every morning

A free recap of the day’s biggest stories and how each side covered them.

What happened

The High Court quashed search warrants used against Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor after Thames Valley Police conceded they were invalid. The judge said errors were made in applying for and granting warrants challenged by his lawyers, who said seized material could be legally privileged or otherwise specially protected. Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office after serving as the U.K.’s trade envoy, then released without charge. The investigation began with allegations that he shared sensitive information with Jeffrey Epstein, which he denies. Police searched two homes and seized documents and devices. The judge said the ruling does not end the investigation, while police said it continues. Whether police may keep or use the seized property remains unresolved.

How each side covered it

From the left

Left-leaning outlets framed the ruling as a serious warrant-process failure, while stressing that it did not wipe out the investigation. The Guardian emphasized Mountbatten-Windsor’s first legal win, with the judge saying police used the wrong statutory route. It also carried police’s view that the embarrassment would not decide the case’s outcome.

From the right

Right-leaning outlets led with invalid raids and leaned harder into how the ruling could weaken the case. Just the News focused on the judge’s finding that police made a significant error in seeking the warrants. The Daily Mail cast the decision as a major win for Andrew and said it cast doubt on evidence gathered during the inquiry.

Headlines