The Royals with Roya and Kate - Why is Andrew taking the police to court?

Episode Date: October 7, 2026

Why is Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor taking the Thames Valley Police to court — and what could his legal challenge change?Ahead of this week's High Court hearing, Kate Mansey and Roya Nikkhah are joined by The Times legal editor Jonathan Ames to explain Andrew’s challenge to the search warrants used by Thames Valley Police in its investigation into his dealings with Jeffrey Epstein. What could a successful challenge mean? And who will cover the legal costs – with the King reportedly insisting his financial support must not fund the case?Andrew remains under investigation following his February arrest on suspicion of misconduct in public office. He denies all wrongdoing.If you enjoyed this episode, make sure to press follow at the top of your podcast app.Get in touch: [e-mail] us on YouTube.Read more: ’Poor Andrew? He’s having a very nice time’Further listening: Andrew inquiry looks into 'sexual misconduct' allegationsProducer: Robert WallaceVideo Producer: Eve ChadbournExecutive Producer: Priyanka DeladiaImage: Getty Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hello and welcome to the Royals, the podcast where we discuss what happens behind palace walls and why it matters. I'm Kate Manzi. And I'm Roya Nika. Why is Andrew taking the police to court? Well, you remember the scenes from February. When Andrew was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office, over allegations he shared sensitive information with Geoffrey Epstein. He was released under investigation and denies all wrongdoing. But now Andrew's making a legal move of his own, lodging a high court challenge against the search warrants used on his homes.

So what is Andrew hoping to achieve and who will pay for this high court challenge? And why is the king insisting his financial support must not fund this legal challenge? Ahead of the high court proceedings, we're joined by Jonathan Ames, legal editor of the Times, to break down what this challenge means. Jonathan, welcome back to the Royals. Great to have you back. Thank you for having me. So literally just last week, Kate, you and I were saying, oh, Andrew seems to have slightly faded from the background

with all the circus surrounding Harry and Megan. It's gone a bit quiet. Didn't last long. Just on cue, it's suddenly not very quiet at all. What do we know? What is going on? He has issued legal proceedings to challenge these warrants. Bring us up to speed.

So yes, he has launched what's called a judicial review against both Thames Valley Police and the central criminal court to challenge the legality of the search warrants that were used to raid his two homes, Marsh Farm at Sandringham. That's his new place the King has moved him to. And his old house at Royal Lodge in Windsor. So we'll all remember that picture as he emerged from the police station. So he was arrested in February, February 19th, on his 66th birthday.

Happy birthday, Andrew. Taken in for 12 hours of questioning, released under police investigation. without charge. He's always denied any wrongdoing. But there were these raids that took place as evidence gathering because he was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. So they went in and they took documents from his homes. They took devices.

And we understand from reports that Andrew thinks they might have taken personal effects of his as well that had nothing to do with the case. He's cross. He's bringing this judicial review essentially to question the legality and saying, was it lawful for those warrants to have been issued in the first place? Now, we should say that Thames Valley Police has said in response to this, it's engaged in legal proceedings in relation to warrants previously obtained from the Central Criminal Court. As these legal proceedings are currently ongoing, it would be inappropriate for us to comment further.

But clearly, Andrew is very unhappy with what happened. It was very so high profile as an arrest, wasn't it? Those pictures of the footage of the police cars arriving at Marsh Farm, that shell-shocked picture of Andrew emerging after questioning. It's sort of shaped the narrative, hasn't it, around the arrest and the investigation. Yeah, and nothing has happened, as we've discussed before, you know, this has been rumbling on for months. In the meantime, I've been told that he's been seething over the whole thing. It felt vindictive to him, that it was done on his birthday.

And now he's in limbo. You know, can't really move on, move back, move forward. So we're going to find out on Thursday there's going to be that first court hearing. But in the meantime, we've had the king say, no funding that I give you. So the deal when he moved to Marsh Farm was that he could have a stipend from the king. Through Charles's private money, he gives Andrew an allowance. It's pretty generous. We understand it's over a million.

And that affords him to have private security, a chef, a valet, other staff, and he can spend it as he sees fit. But Charles has come out and said, well, Roy, tell us. What are he saying? Well, we had very strong briefings that within moment. of this emerging from the palace, basically saying, the king isn't involved in Andrew's legal discussions or legal decisions. Most importantly, he's made it absolutely clear that the stipend that he gives Andrew

should not be used towards any challenge or judicial review or challenge to the courts. Now, Jonathan, it's an unexpected turn of events. Indeed. What do you make of it? Well, it's a very odd turn of events. It's not that unusual for search warrants to be challenged. But I think what's odd about this case is that Andrew is also challenging the court's decision as well as the police's decision to seek the search warrant. Maybe just a little bit of background on judicial review might be useful just if I can summarize it.

Explain it to us and our listeners and viewers. If I can summarize it as quickly as possible. I mean, essentially what judicial review is the purpose of judicial review is to assess whether a decision made by a public body or a public official was taken. reasonably and within that person or body's powers. So in other words, if a public authority said, we're going to build a high-rise building over here, and they did it just randomly without going through the proper processes, that could be judicially reviewed, and the decision could be viewed as being ultra-viris, in other words, taken outside their powers or the decision was unreasonable. I suppose in this case, what Andrew must be looking at, potentially, and it's obviously

just speculation at this stage. What he might be looking at is a suggestion that the police, when they made the application for the search warrant, arguably, and again it's just speculation, arguably went on a fishing exercise. Because what is required normally when you go to the Crown Court for a search warrant in relation to investigating a serious criminal offense is that you have to provide reasonable evidence, reasonable suspicion that an offence has taken place, and you have to provide the court with evidence that there will be. be evidence at a property that you want to search that is likely to shed light on this case. Because we've learned overnight from reporting in the Telegraph that one of the key things that Andrew and his team seem to be quite cross about and have based this challenge on is the fact that there's a suggestion that Towns Valley Police seized personal confidential material not related to the investigation. What's the implication of that, Jonathan?

I mean, is that stronger grounds? Well, indeed. I suppose that probably does suggest that, again, and speculating that could be his line of argument, that the police either misled the court, potentially allegedly, by saying that we think that there's X, Y, Z evidence there, but then they ended up hoovering up a load of possessions that, in Andrew's view, were never going to be anything to do with the alleged offense of misconduct in public office. The curious thing about this, though, is that Andrew is also enjoined, as it were, the court in the judicial review. So while the judge is the, and you refer to the Central Criminal Court,

which is, of course, the most renowned court in the country, known as the Old Bailey. The police went to an old Bailey judge to seek this warrant. And Andrew is, I think, implying that the judge himself or herself, I don't know which judge it was, I'm afraid, but the judge was wrong to issue the warrant. Well, this is the judicial review as the same legal mechanism that Harry used initially to sue the home office when his automatic right to police protection was taken away. And in that case, he argued essentially that the home office had got the law wrong. So what Andrew presumably is trying to do here is to say to the old Bailey court and to Thames Valley Police,

he got the law wrong. It seems like he's fighting it on a technicality because he's talking about how the warrants were issued. So this predates any personal items that may or may not have been found during the raid. The question then is, let's say he's successful, managed to have those warrants quashed. It doesn't necessarily follow, Jonathan, do correct me if I'm wrong, that any evidence obtained as part of their inquiry would then be inadmissible in any potential further court case. What would happen if he wins and he gets these warrants quashed? Well, you're absolutely right.

I mean, obviously there's a chance that if he is successful in the judicial review the High Court rules that either the police or the court had got the law wrong or exceeded their powers in some way in issuing the warrants. If he's successful in that, they could quash the warrants and therefore any evidence that was obtained could be inadmissible, but it doesn't naturally follow. As I said, there are past examples where warrants have been quashed, and yet because the evidence was deemed to be so crucial or so damning potentially in a case, it can still be admitted to court. Would it, if he's successful there, would it pause the investigation at all? Or would the investigation continue regardless of those warrants being quashed? I think it would certainly be an issue in terms of PR for the police. So that may have an effect on their decision making.

Again, I wouldn't like to, I mean, that's pure speculation. I'm sure the police would be able to answer that themselves. But legally, again, as I say, there are two routes. The quashing of the warrants could just mean that anything discovered in that search was no longer admissible and that would obviously seriously hamper any police investigation. It would be bad PR for the police you've mentioned. From a PR perspective here, I think it's an interesting move because... For Andrew, you mean?

Yes. Legally, he's obviously trying to pursue a certain route and challenging that. But from a PRP, it's a very on the front foot move by Andrew, I think. Well, I've been speaking to people in and around Andrew's kind of circle, if you like, who say that picture of him looking shell-shocked after the police, well, he's come a long way since then. He's having quite a nice time. Thank you very much. He's got a circle of loyal friends around him. He still goes off shooting. He doesn't have a gun license anymore, but he can join other shooting parties. And actually, this is all part of him. He was seething over, you know, being arrested on his birthday.

And this is all part of the fight back, if you like. But it just brings him into a kind of a new sphere. Now, around him, of course, you've got this legal team, including Gary Bloxham. He's known as Good News Gary. because he, you know, likes to bring good news to his likes. And you can just sort of see that conversation taking place around a table where Andrew says, it's ridiculous, something must be done. And good news, Gary, he's got some good news. Sir, I think I found a way that something could be done. I mean, what do we know about good news, Gary, John?

I mean, good news, Gary is a very experienced white collar and blood and guts criminal lawyer. His firm does both. None of us is sitting around the table when Andrew is seeking legal advice. As jaunders as I am about lawyers and the legal profession at times, I think that he is probably being very well advised. But that doesn't mean that lawyers are not taking into account, as you've just highlighted, the public relations element of this. I think you're absolutely right that there is arguably a more important PR tactic here

than a legal tactic. For what it's worth, and I have... I've obviously been wrong, as my readers will attest in the past, but I would be very surprised if the judicial review is successful. I mean, it could be, but I should be very surprised if it were. However, from a PR point of view, or as you've highlighted, getting on the front foot point of view, it's probably quite clever because it, you know, puts the police on the back foot, it just raises doubts in the minds of the public as to whether the whole thing was, as I speculated earlier, perhaps a fishing exercise, and that actually there's nothing to see there.

Coming up, I think it's significant because the first time member of the royal family has challenged criminal proceeding since King Charles I's trial in the 1600s. We know how that ended. Well, the hope was very much, when Andrew's titles were stripped away from him after all the Epstein stuff bubbled over again, titles stripped, evicted from Royal Lodge, banished up to Norfolk, sent to live in exile in Marsh Farm, while he waits to see where this police investigation goes, the hope very much from the king, who, as we understand, has not seen his brother since then, which is quite a thing, was that he would be out of sight and mostly out of public mind. The word that he was used to me was contained in Norfolk, while this investigation carried out and he waited to see whether or not he would be charged with these offenses,

he continues to know all wrongdoing. This is very much not what the king would have wanted. It is not out of sight. It is not out of mind. He's out of the box. He's not being contained. Andrew never want to be contained. We'll not be contained. Big question mark is, who's going to fund this?

Now that we know that the king has been very clear to say, money I give you, by the way, please don't be spending that on a judicial review. He may have little control over that. Who is going to fund that? Well, you wonder whether Andrew has wealth in reserves. But, you know, anyone who might point to that would remember, of course, the huge payout that he made to Virginia G. Jufray, one of Epstein's victims.

It was an out-of-court settlement when she brought a civil case against Andrew. He denied all wrongdoing. He made that settlement payment with no liability. Having said that, he had to take money from the Lake Queen and Prince Philip and other members of the royal family. But it does make you wonder how much money Andrew actually has left to bring these sorts of cases. One of the interesting is talking about the PR perspective of about Jonathan. I remember writing a piece in the summer about Andrew's life up in Norfolk and speaking to people kind of around to people at the palace. when this all first happened, when the fallout last October started boiling over, the Kingship the titles, there was real concern in Palace Circles about his state of mind. There was a real concern about handling it in a sensitive way to make sure that he was relatively protected because it was a huge change for him. People were worried about his mental health. They were really worried about his mental health. When I spoke to people again in July, admittedly it was quite a solitary life, not many friends around at the time, but people aware of sort of how he was,

did say he was much less fragile. He was in a much less fragile state of mind than he wasn't all happened. And I think this sort of move points to that as well. It's a bounce back. It's Andrew coming back fighting. And I think just on the cost point, going to law is always expensive. But Andrew will not be in Harry territory here. I mean, this is not going to be millions. Bringing a judicial review in relative terms is relatively inexpensive. However, I would say that this claim, depending on how many lawyers he's instructed, I mean, Good news, Gary will not be the only one. He will need barristers involved as well.

But I should think that, you know, it'd be reasonable to say it's going to cost between 50 and 100,000 pounds. He's also not really on the hook for cost because it's a judicial review. I mean, well, he is on the hook for cost. But his own. But, you know, his own. It's an issue with a Thames Valley would seek cost against him if he lost. But it's not a massive amount of money in relative terms. So depending on what that stipend is from.

his brother, potentially he's able to finance it himself. As to whether or how or whether his brother would try and prevent him from spending his stipend on this claim is not one for me. But interestingly, talking about the publicity around it and how it's all going to play out, Thames Valley Police are the ones who've asked for the initial hearing to be made in private, which of course, media like the Times are challenging. It's not Andrew who's saying, I don't want this information out there. So that strikes that he does feel like he's on the front foot.

Indeed, that's a very good point. I mean, one that I wanted to raise earlier, that a curious element of this claim is that the first thing that's going to be heard is an application to challenge the Thames Valley's position that the judicial review should be heard in private. Why would they want it held in private? Again, it's purely speculation. I mean, perhaps they will argue that because their investigations are at a sensitive stage,

that publicity and reporting around the judicial review could endanger their investigation somehow, The hearing is on Thursday. If the judge decides to keep it secret, then, you know, there's a very limited amount of what can be reported. If the judge decides that those documents are submitted in the claim aren't made secret, what kind of detail might we learn? Well, I think we get it all then, don't we? I mean, we'll get his submissions on why his legal team believe that the police in the first instance. And then the court made an unlawful application for a search warrant. And then it was unlawfully granted.

I mean, we will get their full submissions on justifying that claim. And could that include detail on what kind of things that they've seized that he says a confidential and private has not related to the investigation? Well, I think potentially, yes, yes. There's also a potential here for it to be all a bit of a damp squib in terms of their application. They may be relying on an absolute technicality. Maybe something on the warrant wasn't signed by the right officer. Maybe the judge overlooked something in public interest terms, or when I use public interest,

I mean what the public's interested in, what we as reporters would be interested in would be pretty dull. So we're all getting excited. We may be getting excited over an application that is very, very technical, or it may not be. But maybe on the law side, we're getting over-excited. But in terms of this, I think it's significant because the first time member of the royal family has challenged criminal proceedings since King Charles I first trial in the 16-100s. We know how that ended. It didn't end well. It didn't end well for the member of the royal family, no.

I mean, how is this going to play out with the king? Do you think, Roy? I mean, surely it jeopardises Andrew's financial security going forward. I suspect the king just feels constantly exasperated by his brother. You know, we are looking at eight months on from his arrest when I think eight months on, the king would have hoped that his brother might just keep a low profile. And as the king said in that statement, the law must take its course. But, you know, Andrew is not content to let the law take its course.

He's challenging the law here. And that is the last thing that the king and the rest of the real family would have wanted, I suspect. He's very exasperated. And, you know, he's about to go, I'm about to go and do an engagement with the king somewhere, quite high profile with some very high profile for people. There'll be Kamrik who's there possibly shouting out questions about this now. And that's problematic. It's exactly what the king doesn't want. It's been a year since he took away the prince title, the Duke of York title, stripped him of any kind of last vestiges of royal status in a way. I mean, he remains eighth in line to the throne.

but it's hard to work out how Charles can further reprimand him. It feels a bit like Andrew's got nothing left to lose with this, bringing this case, that he's just sort of going to go out all guns blazing. Because why not? Why not? We've eight months on from the arrest. The law is taking its course very slowly. That's a very good point.

How long might something like a judicial review take? This has been going on in the background for some time. His legal team sought leave for judicial review several months ago. So now we've got the hearing on Thursday. So things will happen fairly quickly now. But you've raised a good point about the ongoing investigation since Andrew was arrested. I mean, at the risk of expressing some sympathy for Andrew, which very few people do these days, he has highlighted an issue that is very live in criminal law circles, which is that the police now,

they've arrested him and released him under investigation. It's called RUI in the trade. And that means, unlike bail, if they'd arrested it, and put him under police bail or charged him and bailed him, then things would move very quickly. But released under investigation is a sort of open-ended process where the police can say, well, we'll take our time, we need to X, Y, Z. And in this case, it's dragged on and on. And that is a very, very live issue for criminal defense lawyers and people who find themselves

being investigated by the police because they say, well, it can drag on for months, if not sometimes longer. and it hangs over you for a considerable amount of time. It is a very long time for a member of the royal family to be waiting to see whether they are going to be charged. Jonathan, thank you so much for explaining that in brilliantly layman's terms because it can be a very complex area and we'll wait and see what happens and we will continue to follow this very closely.

Well, we will, of course, be following developments as well in Andrew's High Court Challenge. So make sure you subscribe at the time. times.com for all the latest reporting. And if you enjoyed this episode, please give us a follow on your podcast app or subscribe to the Times Royals channel on YouTube so you don't miss any episodes. As always, thanks for joining us on The Royals and we'll see you next week.