Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has won his legal case today.

Agree- the judge who issued the warrant in the first place should have issued under both section 8 and section 9 of PACE in the first place- just as TVP requested!

Oh dear, highly paid lawyers are the only people who will benefit from this debacle.
AMB ‘s victims certainly will not and his prosecution will be delayed even further. Confidence in the crown court system and TVP will be lessened the only person who might be pleased is AMB himself.
Shame!!!

It's a molehill being made into.a mountain by some media outlets in so far as seeking to criticise Thames Valley Police I guess. It's also a molehill as the matter is focussed on a legal technicality of the section of PACE code the judge decided was solely necessary when the judge issued the search warrants. Most don't understand the technicality or the implications.

tI.e. i's the type of evidence that was seized is at the crux of AMB's decision to seek an independent review. Sensitive evidence he seeks to be rejected from the police investigation.

There will now be a hearing behind closed doors (i.e. because it's about the nature of the sensitive evidence) to determine what happens to the evidence now. The is because the nature of the evidence seized is most likely at the crux of TVP investigation and AMB wants it rejected.

BBC website sums ups quite well:

"Legal wrangle continues over material seized from former prince. The next stage in this legal dispute will be a behind-closed-doors hearing over whether the police can still retain material seized from Mountbatten-Windsor's homes under alternative powers ( ie section 9 PACE which TVP did include in its initial application for the search warrants) designed for situations like this.

The error that has led to Thames Valley Police accepting the search warrants were unlawful relates to the particular power the judge permitted the force to use when its officers raided the properties. Strict legal safeguards on searches bar the police from automatically seizing sensitive material without thinking through in advance the need to take it. Examples of that material include advice from a suspect's lawyer or material which does not really belong to them, such as copies of confidential work-related papers from an employer.
In practice, if the police find such material during a search, they should return it rather than use it in their investigation.
The category of search warrant that was granted by the court in this instance did not take into account the possibility of such protected material being seized".

In this case Thames Valley Police actually did make their search warrant application under section 8 and 9 of PACE correctly taking account of the need to cover all bases. It was the judge, who issued the warrant that said section 9 not necessary That is at the crux of the technicality issue.

Back to BBC:

"However, the law says police can in fact seize that kind of material - or potentially retain it in the event of an error - providing they pass some extra tests. Thames Valley Police must now convince a judge that the material is likely to be of "substantial value" to their investigation into Mountbatten-Windsor and, ultimately, potential evidence to present to a court. So while the force has conceded the search warrant was unlawful, a judge will have to decide whether this alternative search power, with its extra safeguards, justifies them keeping and using the material after all".

The fact that TVP did include Section 9 of PACE on their search warrant application shows TVP did consider both sections of PACE. TVP must now make the case the evidence is of substantial value. The judge in that closed hearing will decide which evidence is of insubstantial value will be handed back and any of substantial value will be retained by TVP.

A judge said yesterday that the fact that the paperwork was removed using a wrong piece of the law, is insignificant because the judge can simply issue the correct paperwork.

I do think this is a molehill being made into a mountain.

This was covered on the Breakfast News (ITV) this morning.

It was reported that there is to be a hearing early 2027 to decide if the paperwork etc., removed from the Sandringham and Windsor properties can be used as evidence.

The fact that the warrant issued was wrong and acted upon in such a high profile case proves that both Judge and Police did not check before proceeding. Therefore lack of attention to detail; incompetence.

The filming of boxes of 'evidence' carried out of the properties and showed relentlessly on TV reminded me of the search of Cliff Richard's house and those of the men accused of paedophilia, Leon Brittan and others; Harvey Proctor is still suffering the consequences.

Oh so he’ll be in for a big payout of tax payers money!

It was Thames Valley Police

The Met Police shooting themselves in the foot, yet again.
Surely, with such a prominent figure in a high profile case the Police should have checked and double checked that everything was in place and covered their backs.

It said on the news that it was the judge who granted the warrants who granted them under the wrong "Article"! If that is the case then it was not the police at fault.

eazybee

It is of significance because the police and Judge have been shown to be incompetent in a high profile case. Thames Valley Police had accepted the warrants had not been correctly granted when they were issued the day before the former Duke was arrested.

TV Police have not been shown to be incompetent- no factual basis for your statement whatsoever.

GrannyGravy13

I posted could invalidate which is what several news outlets are reporting.

The Met are trying to improve their image and that of their officers, negative reporting will not help them.

(We have Met police officers in our extended family, I would love to see more positive reporting)

Could - but highly unlikely in context of the High Court Judge's' ruling and in the context that Thames Valle Police ac ted correctly throughout.

We all know media outlets, some more than others, are not always factually correct, may seek to undermine TVP and might not include context and detail of the Judge's ruling . It is clear that this High Court ruling exonerates Thames Valley Police. Which media outlets are seeking to use the ruling to undermine the image of TVP? That would be wholly unfair and highly biased.

AMB's case was that an unlawful warrant was issued. The warrant was issued by the CCC not TV Police. AMW named TVP Chief Constable as a co defendant alongside the Centre Criminal court. Of course he would try that tactic- intentionally strategic I would suggest. Anything to get media adverse media coverage of TVP and their investigation pre possible trial. AMW must least suspect there is strong enough evidence to lead to a trial otherwise why try to get evidence quashed? Plus AMB is overtly seeking to get evidence rejected/quashed. Mmmm.

More factually correct media outlets are quoting what the High Courty judge actually said in his ruling: There would be little point in handing property back if it could simply be lawfully seized under some other provision

More reliable media outlets have also quoted TV Police response today: "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 We ensured the court was presented with all the correct information and paperwork to inform their decision following the correct legal processes throughout. We accept the position the initial court's decision to use warrants under the specific piece of legislation used was incorrect and therefore these must be legal quashed. 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."

That is the High Court judge's job was to rule on AMW's claim. Now another court must verify, confirm and rubber stamp how the evidence will be managed as part of the investigation going forward.

It is of significance because the police and Judge have been shown to be incompetent in a high profile case. Thames Valley Police had accepted the warrants had not been correctly granted when they were issued the day before the former Duke was arrested.

I have reported my OP and requested that it is edited

Apologies you are correct it is Thames Valley Police

I really shouldn’t multitask, sorry 🤦‍♀️

I posted could invalidate which is what several news outlets are reporting.

The Met are trying to improve their image and that of their officers, negative reporting will not help them.

(We have Met police officers in our extended family, I would love to see more positive reporting)

It wasn’t the Met., it was Thames Valley police. I don’t think there’s any excuse, particularly in such a high profile case.

It is not a nail in the met Police coffin!

This ruling has little significance and it won't invalidate any evidence gathered on the earlier search.

The Met Police applied for the warrant under section 8 and 9 of PACE. The court indicated section 9 was not needed and the court issued warrant under section 8 only of PACE.

Andrew won his claim on a technicality. It has been ruled that as the warrant could/should have been legally issued correctly in the first place by the earlier court, ie under section 9 of PACE, there is no legal reason for the Met Police not to retain any evidence it secured earlier.

Any evidence secured will not be deemed invalid in this context.

Whitewavemark2

It is of little significance. All the evidence needed is already available.

It is very significant for the Met. Added to their mounting catalogue of errors this
is another nail in their coffin

It is of little significance. All the evidence needed is already available.