King bans Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor from using his money to fight legal battles against police who arrested ex-Prince and the courts

King bans Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor from using his money to fight legal battles against police who arrested ex-Prince and the courts The King has banned Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor from using his money to fight the police and courts. Last night, it was revealed the former prince was taking on the police who arrested him in February and raided his homes over his connection to paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. The disgraced royal has asked a High Court judge to declare the searches were unlawful after an Old Bailey judge approved the warrants for the searches earlier this year. Andrew has launched a judicial review against the decisions by Thames Valley Police and the Old Bailey. And now the police have sparked a secrecy row by trying to keep the public in the dark. The force has applied for a draconian application to keep a lid on documents in the case, which a senior judge will hear on Thursday this week. Andrew's battle against the Crown's courts and police are a minefield for Buckingham Palace which has declined to comment. But sources have stressed the King is not funding his brother's legal fight. Although King Charles provides Andrew with a private source of income, palace sources say it has been made clear these monies should not be used to fund a Judicial Review. The royal was arrested in February, with police searching his cottage in Sandringham and his former home Royal Lodge in Windsor. The warrants allowed officers to raid Andrew's home at Marsh Farm on the Sandringham Estate and his Windsor residence on February 19, his 66th birthday. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor leaving Aylsham Police Station after he was released from custody in February King Charles pictured in September while meeting community leaders, firefighters, volunteers and landowners who played a vital role in containing the Glenmore and Abernethy wildfire He was held for almost 12 hours and questioned on suspicion of misconduct in public office, after emails suggested that when he was the UK's trade envoy he shared government information with his Wall Street friend and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Earlier this year, Andrew launched a legal challenge to the lawfulness of his homes being searched. The High Court granted his application for a judicial review of the decision. It is unclear at what stage the judicial review process is at. Now Thames Valley Police has applied to the High Court to maintain secrecy over documents in the case. A senior judge will hear the application on Thursday, but with the Press and public expected to be locked out, at least at first. Under the principle of open justice, court cases are usually held in public unless there is a good reason not to. The hearing on Thursday afternoon before Mr Justice Hilliard is to determine whether the public can know the content of the documents. It will begin in private, but if the judge is minded to restrict access to the papers, media representations will be heard before a final decision is made. Nick Brett, a partner at solicitors Brett Wilson, said: 'The hearing on Thursday is to determine whether the challenge to the police's authority should be heard in private. 'This would be unusual because of the strong bias towards open justice. But in this case, the police may be concerned that the likely media frenzy may prejudice the investigation.' Nick Vamos, partner at law firm Peters & Peters and a former head of special crime at the Crown Prosecution Service, said: 'The High Court can quash search warrants on various grounds, most commonly where the police misled, or failed to provide all relevant evidence to, the court that issued them. Andrew and Charles at the Duchess of Kent's funeral at Westminster Cathedral last September 'As the police do not have a great track record in this area, judicial reviews are not uncommon, although you would expect these particular warrants would have been very carefully reviewed before the police applied for them.' No charges have been brought against Andrew. In May, Thames Valley Police widened its investigation to also look at allegations of sexual misconduct, appealing for anyone with information to come forward. But this was interpreted by some as a sign of desperation by senior officers at the force, worried they had overplayed their hand by arresting the King's younger brother. Former head of royal protection Dai Davies said: 'This is unprecedented as far as I am concerned. Here we are, seeing another member of the royal family attempting to use the King's courts to overturn a decision, this time by His Majesty's constabulary. It's very awkward for the King. In the police force you take an oath to serve the monarch. 'Old Bailey judges are exceptionally senior and experienced. For a member of the Royal Family to question their decision-making is unprecedented and potentially hugely awkward.' Thames Valley Police said: 'Whilst our investigation into misconduct in public office continues, we are engaged in legal proceedings in relation to warrants previously obtained from the Central Criminal Court. 'As these legal proceedings are currently ongoing, it would be inappropriate for us to comment further.' Royal sources said Mr Mountbatten-Windsor's legal defence is a matter for him and his lawyers, and stressed the Royal Household has no role in determining its strategy or actions. Andrew in the Epstein Files over a woman lying on the floor Jeffrey Epstein who received an email from Andrew when he was the UK's trade envoy Historically Andrew was paid an annual stipend by his mother, Queen Elizabeth, to fund his household and living expenses even after he stepped back from official duties estimated to be around £1million a year. This was cut off by Charles in 2024 in a bid to 'smoke' his brother out of Royal Lodge, the 30-room royal mansion he insisted on living in at Windsor. The king also refused to pay privately for his security. The annual stipend was reinstated when Andrew finally agreed to downsize to Sandringham and give up his remaining titles. Earlier this year, it was reported that the disgraced former Duke of York was given £12million by the Royal Family in 2022 to pay off Virginia Giuffre, however Charles is understood to have not contributed. Ms Giuffre, who took her life last April, alleged that Andrew sexually abused her on three occasions in 2001, when she was 17, but this was never tested in court since she accepted his pay-off. In February, it was revealed that the late Queen had loaned Andrew £7million to help him settle Ms Giuffre's civil sexual assault lawsuit in 2022, with another £3million coming from Prince Philip's estate. The remainder of the £12million was apparently raised by donations from other royals – but a source close to the King has denied reports that Charles ever chipped in. A source claimed at the time that 'Andrew's not paid back a penny'. The errant former prince apparently told his family that the millions given to Ms Giuffre would be paid back from the sale of the ski chalet he bought with his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson, although it has been claimed the money has not materialised. Andrew has been linked to four women in the Epstein Files, along with Ms Giuffre. It has been previously claimed that a woman was flown in on Jeffrey Epstein's Boeing 727-100 private jet, which he used to host orgies and traffic girls and was dubbed the 'Lolita Express', and was smuggled into Buckingham Palace using the codename 'Mrs Windsor' to meet Andrew. The disgraced former Duke of York allegedly told aides: 'Mrs Windsor will arrive shortly, please let her in and show her up.' Sources have claimed that other women would be whisked in to see him at his late mother and father's London home using the same coded requests and with no security clearance.