Police feared Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor would try to block searches at his homes

Police feared Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor would try to block searches at his homes Thames Valley Police acknowledged search warrants used to raid Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's homes were unlawful - court documents revealed the force feared they could have lost evidence if they asked the Palace first Police were concerned Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor could attempt to block searches at his properties by claiming officers must obtain permission from the King, legal documents revealed. The ex-prince won a High Court battle over police raids at his two homes, on his 66th birthday in February. Thames Valley Police has acknowledged the search warrants used to search Andrew's residence on the Sandringham Estate and his former Windsor home, Royal Lodge, were unlawful. Andrew challenged the warrants, and now documents from the ongoing High Court proceedings revealed the force feared evidence could be lost if they had to seek permission from Buckingham Palace first. Documents showed detectives were searching for "paperwork, diaries, business records or other documentary evidence of AMW's time as Special Representative for Trade and Investment". According to Andrew's lawyers, police told the Old Bailey judge: "AMW or his legal team may seek to advance that the property belongs to someone else (the King) and that separate legal permission should be sought." They added: "Obtaining such consent may not be expeditious and seeking to do so in advance may frustrate the nature and purpose of the search." The ex-Duke of York was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office on February 19, following allegations he shared sensitive information with Jeffrey Epstein during his time as the UK's trade envoy. He was interviewed under caution before being released under investigation with the police probe ongoing. Andrew denies wrongdoing. Mr Justice Hilliard said last week that while Andrew and Thames Valley Police have reached an "agreement" that the warrants were unlawful, police have since launched a bid to retain evidence gathered during the searches in February. He said Andrew opposes the bid to retain the evidence, with a hearing in the case to be held in private in 2027 on whether the police can keep the items. It means that the former prince could remain in limbo for several more months before learning if he will be charged with an offence. Thames Valley Police said they had applied for search warrants under section eight and section nine of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 at the High Court, commonly known as the Old Bailey, the day before the search. The judge determined that only section eight search warrants were needed and they were granted on that basis - but a legal challenge a short time after the raids established that the court should have issued them under another section of the Act. Details of the error were not made public at the time because they were agreed out of court. Mr Justice Hilliard said the blame for the failing fell on both the police and the judge who granted it. The judge said: "The basic facts are straightforward. A significant error was made in the application for and grant of the search warrants under section eight."