Andrew’s very public arrest, but was it legal?

Technically he should have been asked to attend a police station as is normal police procedure in white-collar criminal cases

Prince Andrew was arrested on his 66th birthday last Thursday February 19 on suspicion of misconduct in public office (MiPO) and was released under investigation the same day, which begs the question of why he was arrested in the first place if it was not even necessary to release him on police bail.

Whatever the allegations against Andrew, it is always wise to adopt a healthy cynicism about police conduct, particularly when they are out to prove that no one is above the law. Why was Andrew arrested when he could have been invited to attend the police station to assist the police in their inquiries, and why was King Charles not informed of his brother’s arrest? The police are after all His Majesty’s Constabulary, and owing to its potential to damage the monarchy, the arrest of Andrew without informing the king was improper and very disrespectful.

King Charles expressed his displeasure in the statement he made shortly after the arrest which was carefully worded as he could not be seen to be supporting Andrew.

After expressing concern about the arrest of Andrew on suspicion of misconduct in public office, the king said he expected a full, fair and proper process and that the case was going to be investigated in the appropriate manner by the appropriate authorities and that it had his wholehearted support and cooperation – adding that the law must take its course and that it would not be right for him to comment further on the case.

Once an arrest takes place, it triggers contempt of court restrictions which means that nothing

can be published that is likely to prejudice a fair trial. However, it is permissible to comment on whether the arrest of Andrew was in order.

The king’s displeasure was lost on most people but reading between the lines what I took him to be saying was that the case was not “investigated in the appropriate manner” since it was not “fair and proper” for Andrew to be arrested in a morning police raid at his home, which seemed to me was the police playing to the gallery. It would have been more consistent with letting “the law to take its course” if Andrew were asked to attend at a police station which is normal police practice in white-collar criminal cases.

Deliberate prosecutorial misconduct that prejudices a fair trial can itself be MiPO, and it is odd that Thames Valley police apparently went on a frolic of their own to arrest Andrew without legal advice on the complicated facts they needed to elicit from him at interview to found a charge of misconduct in public office.

Crucially, the negative publicity caused by Andrew’s improper arrest, including the overlap between his alleged misconduct in sharing confidential information with Epstein and the latter’s sex trafficking offending, could knock out the future prosecution of Andrew for MiPO on the ground he cannot have a fair trial.

Andrew will probably be interviewed at some point in the presence of his lawyer, and he will be cautioned as indeed he must have been when he was arrested and at the police station.

He would have been told that he does not have to say anything but that it may harm his defence if he did not mention something that he later relies on in court and that anything he says may be given in evidence.

I would not presume to advise Andrew without knowing the strength or weakness of the case against him whether to exercise his right to silence, save to say that he was naive and talked too much when he was interviewed by BBC Newsnight’s Emily Maitlis in 2019 and that once his lawyers know the case against him he should follow their advice to the letter.

As this column said in an article on Peter Mandelson on February 8, 2026 what has to be proved in misconduct in public office cases is that the accused held public office and while acting in that capacity wilfully engaged in serious misconduct that abused the public trust reposed in him or her as an office holder without justification or reasonable excuse.

As the misconduct alleged against Andrew is disclosure of information and documents to the late investment adviser and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, it would be surprising if Mandelson is not arrested soon since the allegations against him are also for disclosure of confidential information to Epstein.

Mandelson was a cabinet minister which is obviously a public office. In the case of Andrew, however, it is not clear if his appointment as an unpaid UK trade envoy to promote British commercial interests amongst Middle Eastern and other exotic royals, was a normal public office. His role was to impress foreign potentates with his princely status without being too judgmental about the way they did business and trade.

Apparently, Prince Charles voiced reservations about Andrew’s suitability as trade envoy not because of any propensity to misconduct himself but because the job involved mixing business with pleasure which Charles thought would distract his brother.

Prince Charles was overruled by the late Queen Elizabeth II and Peter Mandelson who was New Labour’s trade minister in 2001. The poor queen is probably turning in her grave to know that her favourite son is being investigated for misconduct in public office a role to which she appointed him.