Police are assessing possible sexual offences as part of the expanding investigation into alleged misconduct in public office by Prince Andrew, according to sources familiar with the inquiry.
Specialist detectives from Thames Valley Police are examining several potential offences linked to Andrew’s period as the UK’s trade envoy, while also pursuing multiple additional lines of inquiry connected to his relationship with the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.
The former duke, 66, was arrested in February on suspicion of misconduct in public office following allegations that confidential information may have been shared with Epstein during Andrew’s time representing British trade interests abroad.
He was later released under investigation and has consistently denied wrongdoing, including allegations connected to Epstein or claims that he personally benefited from his trade role.
The investigation marks an unprecedented moment for British policing and the Royal family, with detectives reportedly facing complex legal questions over whether Andrew’s former trade envoy role qualifies as a “public office” under misconduct legislation.
The offence of misconduct in public office carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and can encompass a wide range of alleged conduct, including unauthorised disclosure of confidential information, corruption, financial misconduct, abuse of position and sexual misconduct.
According to sources, the inquiry is being handled with the scale and structure of a major crime investigation and includes highly experienced officers who have previously worked on serious sexual offence and public corruption cases.
Detectives are understood to be examining allegations connected to claims that a woman was allegedly taken to an address in Windsor in 2010 before later travelling elsewhere.
Previous reports in the United States alleged that a woman linked to Epstein was sent to Britain for a sexual encounter involving Andrew, claims he has repeatedly and strongly denied.
The force is said to be engaging with the woman’s legal representatives and has indicated it is taking a “victim-centred approach” while assessing the available evidence.
Investigators are also understood to be considering whether some allegations could potentially be pursued as standalone offences separate from the broader misconduct in public office inquiry.
The case has involved coordination with prosecutors and requests for information from American authorities following the release of Epstein-related documents by the US Department of Justice earlier this year.
However, police are understood not yet to have received documentation from US officials.
Sources said officers continue to assess material received from members of the public, media reporting and witness testimony while attempting to establish the full extent of any potential wrongdoing.
A key legal hurdle for investigators remains whether Andrew can legally be considered a public official for the purposes of misconduct legislation during the relevant period.
While misconduct in public office prosecutions have historically involved police officers, military personnel and other state officials, there is little legal precedent involving members of the Royal Household acting in quasi-official roles such as trade envoys.
Assistant Chief Constable Oliver Wright confirmed the inquiry remained active.
He said: “Misconduct in public office is a crime that can take different forms, making this a complex investigation.
“Our team of very experienced detectives are working meticulously through a significant amount of information that has come in from the public and other sources.
“We are committed to conducting a thorough investigation into all reasonable lines of enquiry, wherever they may lead.”
The investigation represents the latest chapter in the long-running fallout from Andrew’s association with Epstein, which led to his withdrawal from public royal duties and the removal of several honorary military titles and patronages.
Despite the growing scrutiny, Andrew has continued to deny all allegations of wrongdoing.
Leave a Comment