Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has won his legal case today.

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.