Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has entered a legal club last seen in 1649

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?

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.