← Crime House 24/7
Crime House 24/7
Prince Andrew Arrested: Legal Analyst Mary David Examines the Misconduct Investigation | Crime House 24/7
00:34:03
Loading summary
Transcript43 lines
- [00:02]
A
Hi, it's Vanessa. If you're drawn to true crime stories about disappearances, there's a new Crime House original you should check out. It's called the Final Hours, hosted by Sarah Turney and Courtney Nicole. Sarah's an advocate for missing and murdered victims whose own sister disappeared in 2001. And Courtney is a true crime storyteller who's seen firsthand how crime can change a family forever. Together, they bring lived experience to every case, examining the moments just before a person disappears. The routines, the timelines, the small details that often get overlooked because every disappearance has a moment where everything still feels normal until it doesn't. Listen to and follow the final hours on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your podcasts. New episodes drop every Monday. Good morning everyone. I'm Vanessa Richardson and this is crime house 24 7, your home for breaking true crime news. Today we're taking a slight turn from our usual format for an extended discussion on a case that is taking over headlines, the former Prince Andrew investigation and arrest. These days I'm really focused on quality over quantity. I'm raising my standards, especially when it comes to my closet. It's not well made and versatile. I just don't bother. That's why I love Quince. Their fabrics feel elevated, the cuts are thoughtful and the pricing is surprisingly reasonable. They make wardrobe staples in 100% European linen, silk and organic cotton poplin. Their cotton cashmere sweaters are light, soft and perfect for layering this season and their spring colors gorgeous. Everything is designed to make getting dressed effortless. These are pieces built to last. Soft gauze that isn't flimsy linen that holds holds its shape and stitching that really stands up over time. That cotton cashmere sweater I grabbed has become my daily go to light luxe and exactly what I want. Stop waiting to build the wardrobe you actually want right now. Go to quince.com crimehousepod for free shipping and 365 day returns. That's a full year to wear it and love it and you will now available in Canada too. Don't keep settling for clothes that don't last. Go to Q U I n c e.com crimehousepod for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com crimehouse pod On February 19, 2026, 66 year old Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew Duke of York, was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office by British police after a probe into newly released documents. As a part of the larger ongo ongoing Epstein files investigation. Authorities alleged that during his time as a UK trade envoy, 2001-2011, Andrew may have shared confidential government information with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a claim he denies. The anti monarchy group called Republic brought these claims and according to the BBC, said that Prince Andrews was, quote, suspected misconduct in public office and breach of official secrets. Andrew was arrested on his 66th birthday and and questioned for 11 hours before being released, returning to his residence on the Sandringham Estate in Norfolk, England, where he had been living after being ordered to vacate his longtime home at Royal Lodge in Windsor earlier this year. To help unpack what this new case means legally, what the prosecutors must prove and why this case has drawn intense international attention, I am joined today by attorney and legal analyst Mary David. Mary, welcome to the show. Thank you so much for being here. Tell us a little bit about your background and why this case has stuck out to you so far.
- [04:03]
B
I am very excited to join you for this discussion. I was a prosecutor in Baltimore and focused heavily on sex trafficking and human trafficking. I also helped to vacate convictions of trafficked victims who were charged with crimes while they were being trafficked. And I was also a United nations adviser on women and children's issues. So very passionate about the nexus with international human rights as well, and worked for a few years with an anti sex trafficking organization helping to shed light and empower victims of sex trafficking through advocacy.
- [04:47]
A
Incredible background. We are so lucky to have you. Thank you, Mary.
- [04:50]
B
Oh, I'm delighted to be here. This investigation has so many nuances to it and is in a lot of ways unprecedented in modern times and how it's really unfolded. So this discussion is just the start, hopefully, of more accountability, more visibility when it comes to highlighting and elevating the importance of professional conduct within the public office and more generally, broadly speaking, just accountability for victims and transparency.
- [05:30]
A
That is so true. So misconduct in public office is a common law offense rather than a statute passed by Parliament. How is that crime defined and what specifically must prosecutors prove beyond a reasonable doubt?
- [05:45]
B
As you said, this as a common law offense means that it was developed through the courts, not by statute. And so to prove this charge, prosecutors would have to show that Prince Andrew was a public officer and in that capacity, he engaged in willful or reckless conduct that abused the public trust and that he did not have any excuse or justification in doing so. It specifically is referring to something that is not a minor infraction, not a technicality, but something that is so egregious that it really rises to the criminal level?
- [06:27]
A
Well, if confidential government information was allegedly shared, what exactly qualifies as confidential in this context? And how difficult would that be to
- [06:37]
B
prove when it comes to what is confidential? The. It really goes back to, is there a criminal duty not to disclose this information? It's not merely if something is sensitive. So to find out whether something is legally confidential in this sense, it really goes back to, is this information within the public domain? Did Prince Andrew have a specific obligation to protect that information? Was it subject to official secrecy rules? So in the uk, there is an official secrecy act that really controls what kind of information can be shared, what is potentially a risk to the government if it is released, and then was it classified under government security protocols? So courts will focus really heavily on whether or not there was this clear duty and whether or not that duty was breached.
- [07:41]
A
And what kinds of evidence typically carry the most weight in a public office misconduct investigation? Would it be emails, witness testimony, official documents? What would be the single strongest piece of evidence prosecutors would need to make this case, case viable in court?
- [07:56]
B
You know, it's. As an attorney, I can't say there's necessarily one smoking gun. This is what I'll really mail it in. But what I would say is that if there were any official secrecy undertakings, so, for example, were there any signed agreements that said that due to the nature of this information, you understand that there is an obligation not to disclose this information, that disclosing it is criminal, and that there is an agreement to comply with these secrecy laws? So typically when someone takes a role that might be at the start of their appointment, they are agreeing to these terms. And again, what matters legally is not whether the information is considered colloquially sensitive, but more so in terms of, you know, the context matters. Where was this information shared? You know, was it at a party, where that puts it a little bit in that public domain area, or was this being shared in a private context? And what was the, the nature and the purpose of that? So any, any secrecy undertakings that were signed, and then the other thing that would really matter are written handling instruments, instructions. Was that information previously marked as secret, as confidential? Were there specific requirements in terms of saying who is allowed to access it, what the nature of the communications is, specific details saying this is how this information is to be used, and qualifying it in that way, if there is indication that either of those pieces are available, and if the former Prince Andrew signed any documents like that, that would go a lot further to show that there was this breach of conduct when it comes to misuse of power if that was being shared beyond what was stated in those agreements. Because then he is signing away saying I agree, I acknowledge that this information is private. I agree that I am only shar it and disclosing it under the purposes that it was designed to be shared here, which if it was shared with Jeffrey Epstein, that would be very difficult to show how that was, you know, being being controlled and a lawful engagement. Of course the defense may come back and say he didn't realize what he was signing, he just signed a bunch of things when he first accepted this, this, this role. But, but again instructions that's very difficult to overcome and, and really anything signed you when you sign something, you are assuming responsibility for your signature.
- [11:07]
A
Very important to remember for all of us too. When we come back, Mary David will continue to unpack everything we know about the Prince Andrew investigation.
- [11:20]
C
As someone who talks about crime every day, processing the things some people are capable of can get a little heavy and having a therapist who I can talk to and who gives me extra support is incredibly helpful. On the other side of that, the root of most crimes I cover have to do with mental health and making therapy and mental health support more accessible and affordable could have a significant impact. Rula does it differently. They partner with over a hundred insurance plans and have a network of over 15,000 therapists and psychiatrists nationwide, enabling you to find your personalized solution and the right therapist for you based on your needs, preferences and state requirements. With its diverse network of licensed, experienced professionals, Rula's therapists and psychiatrists make it easy for you to get the care you need. You can book as soon as tomorrow and they stick with you every step of the way. Thousands of people are already using RULA to get affordable, high quality therapy that's actually covered by Insurance. Visit rula.comcrimehouse to get started. After you sign up, you'll be asked how you heard about them. Please support our show and let them know we sent you. That's r u l a.com crimehouse you deserve mental health care that works for you, not against your budget. On this show we spend a lot of time focused on details because details can change how you understand a case and in travel, details change how you understand a place. Colette's small group Explorations tours are designed with that same focus on details. You're led by experts and locals who know the destination inside and out. And groups stay small with an average of just 19 travelers so the experience feels more personal. You might take part in a centuries old tea ceremony in Japan, guided by the meaning and tradition behind every step. Or explore southern Africa on expert led safaris that spend multiple days on game drives, giving you time to truly understand the landscape and wildlife. With Colette, you get immersive travel built on thoughtful planning, local expertise and more than a century of experience behind it. For travel that gets the details right, visit go colette.com podcast and use offer code TRAVEL26 to get $200 off select Colette Explorations tours.
- [13:33]
A
Welcome back to Crime House 24. 7. We're discussing the Prince Andrew investigation with attorney Mary David. After someone is released under investigation, what are the next procedural milestones the public should watch for?
- [13:47]
B
The biggest thing right now is that we are in this investigation stage where law enforcement is really trying to collect as much information as possible. They are preparing their file now. After they do that, the file would be sent to Crown Prosecution Services and their attorneys decide what, whether or not the evidence shows a, has a realistic prospect of succeeding in court. Will this case actually result in a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt? And so you have attorneys that are assessing that because it is a public expenditure and a lot of resources if this does proceed to trial and then after that. So they'll look at that, the evidentiary stage and then they will also assess the public interest. How does this impact the public? And is this something that is important for them to know and is it required in the service of the public? So if both of those prongs are met, then the charges would be authorized. If not, then it would result in no further action. So the, the charging would be the first step. Whether this goes from being simply a file to being sent to the Crown Prosecution Services where they say, yes, we're going to go ahead and charge and then, and then the next step would then be a first appearance similar to an arraignment that we have here. So you would have the person acknowledge their, their identity, what the charges are, and then after that would come the, you know, the, the next hearing date would then be the entrance of a plea. Is that not guilty or is there some sort of plea bargaining in the intermittent phase?
- [15:49]
A
This is so interesting. So how do British charging decisions differ from the US system? Is there a grand jury equivalent in the uk?
- [15:57]
B
That's such a great question. It is very different because in the British system you don't have this grand jury equivalent. They got rid of that some time ago. So what happens there is the police. It goes from being a police investigation to then, in a sense, then you have the attorneys, the prosecutors themselves, Getting together and saying, okay, legally do we feel like these charges would go forward? But this is considered an indictable only offense, meaning that this would have to be tried before the Crown. So what that means is, is that there is automatically mandatory, you're going to have a jury trial and there is no cap on the punishment here. It's really up to the judge to decide that. So the big difference being that there really isn't this grand jury here where we had, you know, between 16 to 23 of your peers coming together to decide. And it's all being done in secret. The accused a lot is not going to be present there. You just have the prosecutor versus in the British system, it's really not in the public sphere until after the charges are brought. But then at the trial phase you definitely have the public involved as the jury to preside over it. In our system we often have this strategic decision that's made, okay, is this better to be decided by a judge? Because we want them to really look at the black letter law. This is. If this goes to the public, it's going to be a lot harder for them not to be tainted. Tainted by the facts of this and to not vilify me. So we want someone who's just going to really be able to maintain that neutrality. And this is the safest way to do that versus here in the British system. That's being done in a sense already when you have the charges filed. So they're doing their best to get rid of that possibility so that by the time it reaches the jurors, and it does in, in this case, then a lot of the questioning of how it could be perceived is kind of dealt with.
- [18:17]
A
Thank you so much, Mary. If charges were filed, what would the pre trial process look like in a case of this magnitude? I mean, all eyes are on this case worldwide.
- [18:27]
B
Yes. So first you're going to have again the charges being being brought and again that kind of arraignment similar to what we saw for example, I mean with any of these trials with Nick Reiner, with Luigi Mangioni, they just come before the court, acknowledge, okay, these charges have been filed, then you have the plea and trial preparation hearing. So that comes out. If there is any possibility that the defendant in that case then wants to take a plea instead of going through with the whole process of a tr, then they can do that. The British system is different in that the plea matters the most in terms of how early you accept it. So plea bargaining is heavily restricted there in comparison to the US in that the earlier you accept it, you have a chance of up to a one third reduction in your possible sentence. So there's a lot left on the table. But at the same time, it's really working to kind of encourage early negotiation and just trying to resolve it as quickly as possible. Whereas in the US you have more of this sense of negotiation, you know, over what the charges are. So if someone is having a case that is the sentence could be life imprisonment, then there is a possibility of arguing down from there or if it's a death penalty eligible case, kind of arguing down, okay, now it's only up to life, but here in the UK system, there's a little bit less of that, but that still could happen. And also in this trial preparation phase, the judge actually has the most control over this and they are really assessing what kind of evidence can be introduced, if there are going to be any limitations on the press in terms of what things can be disclosed, who would be shown in the media and also any public immunity instances. So basically, if certain things are going to compromise security, national security and pose risks there or can damage or destabilize international relations, that can limit the amount of testimony you hear or even what kinds of charges can come out against whom because it's looking out for those national security interests. So there is something called public interest immunity. And so that would be weighed at that early stage.
- [21:24]
A
Still ahead, Mary David continues our conversation on the Prince Andrew investigation.
- [21:35]
B
Why have we asked our contractor we found on Angie.com to be our kid's legal guardian? Because he took such good care when redoing our basement that we knew could trust him to care for our kids, all eight of them, should something happen to us. Are you my dad now?
- [21:50]
A
No, sorry. I do basements. Connecting homeowners with skilled pros for over 30 years. Angie, the one you trust to find the ones you trust. Find pros for all your home projects@angie.com
- [22:03]
C
Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile with a message for everyone paying big wireless way too much. Please, for the love of everything good
- [22:10]
A
in this world, stop with Mint.
- [22:12]
C
You can get premium wireless for just $15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying, no judgments.
- [22:17]
A
But that's weird.
- [22:18]
C
Okay, one judgment anyway.
- [22:21]
A
Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment
- [22:25]
B
of $45 for 3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month required intro rate first 3 months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra.
- [22:31]
A
See full terms@mintmobile.com if you're listening to this podcast you and I have something in common. A passion for true crime with a purpose. I'm Leah Owens, professional crime analyst by day and host of the podcast Last Seen Alive by Night. Last Seen Alive is a podcast focused on little known, unsolved and under reported upon homicide in missing persons cases. All potentially just one tip away from an investigative breakthrough. My co host Scott and I are on a mission to give these cases the public attention and thoughtful storytelling they deserve. So join us as we explore the compelling unsolved cases you've never heard of Every week. Last Seen Alive is available wherever you listen to podcasts and there are hundreds of episodes waiting. Welcome back to crime house 24 7. We're discussing the Prince Andrew investigation with attorney Mary David. This is a landmark case. Obviously the last time a royal faced arrest was in 1649. So that a moment that reshaped British history completely. How, how legally and symbolically consequential is this arrest?
- [23:40]
B
This arrest is highly significant in that it is a Royal family member who is being charged with this misconduct in public office. However, that has been charged more and particularly in recent decades. But typically they are referring to officials that work for the prisons or other public officials that don't rise to the level of being within the Royal family. So that's what's really of note here and it is definitely causing a lot of stressing of the constitutional monarchy within the UK because it is so different.
- [24:31]
A
Well, King Charles's office released a statement on February 9 about these latest allegations. It read in part here. I'll read this quote the King has made clear in words and through unprecedented actions, his profound concern at allegations which continue to come to light in respect of Mr. Mountbatten Windsor's conduct. While the specific claims in question are for Mr. Mountbatten Windsor to address, if we are approached by Thames Valley police, we stand ready to support them, as you would expect, end quote. The statement added that, quote, their Majesty's thoughts and sympathies have been and remain with the victims of any and all forms of abuse, end quote. That statement makes it pretty clear that the allegations are for Prince Andrew to address personally, but also pledges cooperation with law enforcement. So legally speaking, could that open the door to the palace being drawn into the case in any formal way, do you think?
- [25:28]
B
These statements alone are good to unpack because what they really do is they signal international cooperation and distance. It really is not presenting necessarily a new legal duty on the Crown. However, the investigation itself may result in requiring their assistance. For example, if they need to access calendar Law logs, emails, if they need corroboration, witness statements from other members of the staff. And so I think the biggest takeaway from this is that they are putting on the record that they will assist as the public would expect them to. So because of that language, this is where, you know, you could, you could really analyze it and analyze it and analyze it over again. But, but that, that, that little piece at the end, as you would expect them to there, and you could say, well, we would expect you to assist with any, if you have any information that is in any way maybe hurting Prince Andrew, but supporting these charges because it's valid and true, you need to turn that over. But as far as presenting a legal affirmative duty to do something, I don't think they have that. But, but certainly I think that it is in part them doing some PR damage control and in part them saying, okay, well, if people need to be spoken with, we're not going to put major barriers around that.
- [27:15]
A
Yes, yes. Distance, what you said is the operative word. That's absolutely. Could this investigation have broader implications for how members of the monarchy engage in official roles in the future?
- [27:26]
B
Future? Something of this magnitude happening, I do believe will impact the control that they have and sort of closing in the circle of who is going to engage publicly. I do think that there are going to be more restrictions in terms of who would be holding these kinds of roles and really ensuring that there are no gray areas that could be potential pitfalls later. I think it will really result in tighter supervision of those royals as well, and also stricter information handling, making sure that any information is marked with those handling instructions. This is confidential, this is secret, requiring some sort of sign off on that so that it limits their exposure to liability. So I think in a sense that what we're going to see is the Crown really taking a step to strategically pivot in a way where it allows constitutional monarchies like theirs to survive. Because at the basis of that is public trust. And that is what is so severely in question right now.
- [28:57]
A
You touched on this earlier. Given the global media attention, this is a huge kind of a media circus. How do courts attempt to insulate potential jurors from public narrative?
- [29:07]
B
The way that the British court system operates is much more restrictive on what is shared publicly, point blank, period. So, for example, even when it came to the arrest of Prince Andrew, there was not an official naming of him from the police. And that won't happen until charges are formally brought. So what happened there was, you know, people kind of connected the dots based on the Photographs and just being able to track the actual travel and the, you know, the officers arriving at the residences and things like that. But they really do work to keep the court process a lot more insulated. And so specifically to that there are legal duties for everyone involved. So when it comes to the press, there are contempt of court and strict liability rules. So essentially they can be fined very heavily if they are reporting anything that suggests guilt or publishing inadmissible evidence. They can't reveal any suppressed material. So anything that's not supposed to be out in the public, if that's going out to the public, then there will be severe consequences for that. And interestingly, I haven't seen this so much in the US system, but those rules also apply to the jury members, so they can actually be prosecuted for breaching any confidentiality when it comes to looking at their news and keeping up with the case, doing any outside research. I'm not saying that never happens. In the US System it does, but the way that it is really emphasized at the beginning is, is different. In the US we rely heavily on voir dire. So asking questions that can really get at bias and figure out if this person is really going to be able to main neutral. In the UK system, you just have the judge and jury instructions and different parameters in place from the outset saying, hey, we're going to come after you. If you violate any of the terms of what you're supposed to be doing in your role as a juror.
- [31:45]
A
In cases involving elite networks like this, how difficult is it to secure witness cooperation? This is a huge case, obviously many well known people involved. How hard is it to secure those witnesses?
- [31:58]
B
This is tricky, especially when you are dealing with something that involves international scope, international cooperation and sensitive institutional material. The risks are certainly higher. But I will say that, that even though that can in some ways be a real risk, at the same time, I think what you have indicated from the Crown is that they really are working to uncover it. And on top of that, I think especially because there is so much public pressure, you have investigators really trying to get at the root of this. And so I think that when it comes to the kind of leverage and the kind of just that, that they are really taking this seriously. And the other thing is there could also be cooperating agreements in place, so any kind of immunity deals that say, okay, well you won't be prosecuted for anything you say, but we really do want your information to be shared here.
- [33:13]
A
So many listeners might be wondering right now how much this arrest is connected to the broader Epstein investigation and past sexual abuse allegations, given how closely Prince Andrew's name has been tied to those claims. So from a legal perspective, is there any indication this arrest is connected to that history or are we looking at something entirely separate here with this case?
- [33:35]
B
This case really is about questioning the emails that pertain to the former Prince Andrew's role while he was in his capacity as trade envoy. But even though that is the focus of this investigation, because of its nexus to the Epstein files and anything else that they come across us through this investigation that then may bleed out into things beyond the scope of the public misconduct charges. So that means that essentially the units that this is being investigated through, these units overlap. So you do have investigators who can share information and there, there is a duty to, to disclose that if you, in the course of their investigation, they find something related to other charges. So I do think that's within the realm of possibility. You may also have different amendments to what is considered misconduct in public office. And we have to remember too that when you are dealing with an investigation like this, especially because we know that investigators here are being even more tight lipped than we are used to in the United States, there is probably a wealth of information that we don't even know about that could be tied to this. So right now what's being released is that this is related to his role as trade envoy. And I'm not trying to speculate beyond what is, is put out there. You know, so, and again, anyone, everyone is, is innocent until proven guilty. But what is really on the table is potentially more than we realize. The other thing is there is no statute of limitations on any of these charges. So these can be amended at any point. And even if the, the Crown Prosecutors don't choose to, to bring charges right now, that doesn't mean that they won't amend and bring charges later or add charges. We could also see that and we do know that even after the former Prince Andrew's arrest, they continued to search the residences, they continued to expand their investigation as we probably can expect to be continuing to happen, I would guess over the next couple of months.
- [36:29]
A
Mary, thank you again so much for joining us on crime house 24 7. This investigation raises significant questions about responsibility, accountability in public office and how the justice system handles allegations involving powerful public figures and in different countries. We appreciate you helping our viewers understand the legal road ahead and what to watch for as this case unfolds. Thank you so much for your time.
- [36:52]
B
Such a pleasure to join you. Thank you for covering this.
- [36:56]
A
Absolutely. Thank you Your insight has been incredible. This episode is brought to you by Progressive. Most of you aren't just listening right now. You're driving, cleaning and even exercising. But what if you could be saving money by switching to Progressive? Drivers who save by switching save nearly $750 on average and auto customers qualify for an average of 7. Discounts multitask right now quote today@progressive.com Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates national average 12 month savings of $744 by new customers surveyed who saved with Progressive between June 2022 and May 2023. Potential savings will vary. Discounts not available in all states and situations. Hi, it's Vanessa. If you're drawn to true crime stories about disappearances, check out the new Crime House original the Final Hours, hosted by Sarah Turney and Courtney Nicole. Listen to and follow the Final hours on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music or wherever you get your podcasts. New episodes drop every Monday. Starting a business can seem like a daunting task unless you have a partner like Shopify. They have the tools you need to start and grow your business. Business. From designing a website to marketing to selling and beyond, Shopify can help with everything you need. There's a reason millions of companies like Mattel, Heinz and Allbirds continue to trust and use them. With Shopify on your side, turn your big business idea into Sign up for your $1 per month trial@shopify.com specialoffer.