Andrew Mountbatten Windsor's 'victory' sparks reaction from anti-monarchy group
British police on Thursday said that search warrants they secured to search properties linked to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had been issued unlawfully
An anti-monarchy group has called for the Andrew investigation to continue unabated following a court's decision to rule search warrants unlawful.
Campaign group Republic has urged Thames Valley Police to “get their act together and continue to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.”
The reaction came after British police on Thursday said that search warrants they secured to search properties linked to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had been issued unlawfully and must be quashed, but said the investigation into King Charles' younger brother was ongoing.
Mountbatten-Windsor, 66, was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office in February, linked to his relationship with the late US sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, and searches were carried out at properties in Sandringham, eastern England, and Windsor.
In a statement released by Republic, the group’s CEO Graham Smith said:
"I reported Andrew to the police on the basis of information in the Epstein files, which prompted the initial police investigation. Whether or not Andrew is guilty of this or any other offence does not and cannot rest on a technicality."
Andrew has been accused of various offences for years, and for years the police, government and the royals have turned a blind eye to protect him from scrutiny. Police must follow the evidence wherever it leads. The victims and accused all deserve justice.
I make no claims as to the guilt or innocence of anyone involved, but it is vital that evidence is pursued and investigations followed and that everyone is treated equally in law.
There is a widespread view that the royals are not treated equally in law, that the rich and powerful can dodge investigation. It is vital this police blunder does not impede justice.
It is also time that William, Charles and other royals were called in as witnesses, and that journalists continue to echo that question the public wants an answer to: 'what did you know?’"
