Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s decision to challenge search warrants connected to his arrest has drawn an extraordinary historical comparison – to the trial of Charles I almost four centuries ago.
The former Prince Andrew is taking legal action against Thames Valley Police and the Central Criminal Court over warrants issued shortly before his arrest in February.
According to the Daily Telegraph, the case represents the first time a member of the Royal Family has challenged the lawfulness of criminal proceedings against them since Charles I was put on trial in 1649.
The comparison is striking, although the circumstances surrounding the two cases could hardly be more different.
What happened to Charles I?
Charles I was placed on trial in Westminster Hall in January 1649 following the English Civil War.
The King was accused of high treason and of having waged war against Parliament and the people of England.
But Charles refused to recognise the authority of the court that had been established to try him.
He repeatedly challenged its jurisdiction, arguing that no court had the lawful authority to put the King on trial.
Charles refused to enter a plea, instead questioning the legitimacy of the proceedings themselves.
The court nevertheless continued with the trial.
He was convicted and sentenced to death on 27 January 1649.
Three days later, on 30 January, Charles was beheaded outside the Banqueting House in Whitehall.
He became the first English king to be tried and condemned to death while still on the throne.
How does Andrew’s case compare?
The connection with Andrew is much narrower.
Andrew is not challenging the authority of the British courts to investigate or prosecute him.
Instead, his lawyers are challenging the legality of search warrants issued by a judge at the Central Criminal Court on 18 February — one day before his arrest.
The warrants allowed Thames Valley Police to search properties connected to him, including Marsh Farm on the Sandringham estate and Royal Lodge in Windsor.
Andrew is seeking a judicial review of the actions of Thames Valley Police and the Central Criminal Court.
His lawyers want the warrants to be quashed.
The High Court has granted permission for the challenge to proceed.
Why is the comparison being made?
The significance lies in the unusual position of a member of the Royal Family using the courts to challenge the legality of criminal proceedings against them.
For Charles I, the challenge was fundamental.
He argued that the court itself had no authority to try him.
For Andrew, the challenge concerns whether specific investigative powers were lawfully exercised.
In other words, Charles was effectively disputing the right of the court to try him, while Andrew is disputing the lawfulness of the warrants used during the investigation against him.
Nevertheless, the historical comparison highlights just how unusual the current proceedings are.
What happens to the search warrants if Andrew wins?
A successful challenge would not necessarily bring the police investigation to an end.
The case is concerned with the lawfulness of the warrants, rather than determining whether Andrew committed the alleged offence.
Criminal lawyer Nick Vamos, a former head of special crime at the Crown Prosecution Service, has pointed out that even if a warrant is quashed, police may in some circumstances be able to apply to the Crown Court to retain material obtained during a search.
A more fundamental defect in the granting of the warrant could have more significant consequences.
The precise impact would therefore depend on the court’s findings.
Andrew remains under investigation
The legal challenge comes while Thames Valley Police continues its investigation into suspected misconduct in public office.
Andrew was arrested on 19 February, his 66th birthday, following revelations contained in material from the Jeffrey Epstein files.
He was interviewed under caution before being released under investigation.
The investigation has included allegations that Andrew shared sensitive official information with Epstein while serving as the UK’s trade envoy.
Police have also said allegations of sexual misconduct could be considered as part of the investigation.
Andrew has consistently denied wrongdoing connected to his association with Epstein.
Thames Valley Police has confirmed that it is opposing the legal challenge.
The force said it was involved in proceedings concerning warrants previously obtained from the Central Criminal Court but declined to comment further while the case remains before the courts.
A royal legal history stretching back centuries
The comparison with Charles I offers a remarkable glimpse into the unusual relationship between the Royal Family and the courts.
Charles’s trial in 1649 represented an unprecedented challenge to the constitutional order of the time.
Andrew’s case is, of course, nothing like that.
Britain’s constitutional arrangements have changed dramatically since the seventeenth century, and members of the Royal Family are subject to the law like other individuals.
Andrew’s legal challenge is therefore a conventional modern judicial review in form, even if the identity of the person bringing it makes the case highly unusual.
The fact that the proceedings have nevertheless prompted a comparison with one of the most extraordinary royal trials in British history makes Andrew’s latest legal move particularly notable.
The High Court is expected to begin considering the case on Thursday, when Mr Justice Hilliard will initially hear arguments over whether documents connected to the challenge should remain private.
For now, the legal question is not whether Andrew is guilty or innocent.
It is whether the warrants used by police in the investigation were lawfully obtained and issued.
