Supporters of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have drawn direct parallels between the police operation investigating him and the Operation Midland investigation.
It comes ahead of a High Court hearing taking place today to determine whether the details of Mr Mountbatten-Windsor’s judicial review against Thames Valley Police will be made public or kept under wraps.
The force has lodged an application seeking to restrict access to court documents, but the former Duke of York is pushing for full transparency.
Mr Mountbatten-Windsor, who will not be present at the hearing himself, is understood to believe he holds a robust legal position.
Those familiar with his thinking say he is driven by a pursuit of “fairness and justice” in bringing the challenge.
The former duke has taken Thames Valley Police to court over allegations that officers improperly seized personal belongings during raids on his residence. He is additionally contesting the validity of the search warrant, which was granted by a judge at the Old Bailey.
Allies of Mr Mountbatten-Windsor have drawn parallels between the police operation targeting him and Operation Midland, pointing to the timing of his arrest.
The police carried out the arrest on the day he turned 66 in February, and Mr Mountbatten-Windsor’s friends view this as evidence that the force sought maximum exposure for the investigation.
The subsequent searches of his home, which lasted six days, have reinforced this view among his circle.
Those close to the former duke are convinced that the raids were designed to maximise public exposure and cause deliberate embarrassment, rather than being conducted in a careful, measured fashion.
The comparison to Operation Midland is a pointed one, given that the Metropolitan Police’s criminal probe ultimately resulted in the force paying substantial damages to those whose properties had been searched.
The Operation Midland inquiry, which ran from 2014 to 2016, saw Metropolitan Police detectives pursue what proved to be a non-existent Westminster child abuse network.
Among those investigated was Lord Brittan, the former home secretary, whose home was raided despite his having died just weeks before.
Sir Richard Henriques, a retired High Court judge tasked with reviewing the Met’s handling of the case, delivered a withering assessment of how officers conducted their searches.
He found that detectives at Lady Brittan’s property in North Yorkshire “acted as if they were looking for bodies or body parts”.
Sir Richard was particularly critical of the thoroughness with which officers went through every document in the house, scrutinising items as personal as condolence letters and golden wedding anniversary cards.
The Met was ultimately compelled to pay significant sums in compensation to those whose homes had been subjected to raids.
Should Mr Mountbatten-Windsor prevail in his judicial review, the consequences for Thames Valley Police could be severe. The force may be compelled to hand back all material confiscated during the raids as part of an investigation which was launched in the wake of the Epstein Files being made public earlier this year.
According to a source who spoke to The Telegraph, the former duke’s motivation for the judicial review is not financial. Rather, he is firmly convinced that the extensive searches carried out at his properties were conducted without lawful authority.
His arrest marked an unprecedented moment in the history of the House of Windsor, making him the most senior member of the Royal family to face arrest in modern times.
Mr Mountbatten-Windsor has consistently and strongly denied any wrongdoing.
The former duke is challenging both the seizure of his personal possessions and the legality of the warrant that authorised the operation.
Palace officials have made clear that Mr Mountbatten-Windsor is prohibited from drawing on the King’s private funds to finance his legal challenge. He does, however, receive a six-figure annual allowance from the monarch for personal costs, including private security.
A Thames Valley Police spokesman told GB News earlier this week: “As these legal proceedings are currently ongoing, it would be inappropriate for us to comment further.”
Our Standards: The GB News Editorial Charter
