Warrants used to search Andrew’s homes were unlawful, court says
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 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.
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.