Can the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity be Employed to Defend Ex-Prince Andrew? By Ian Wilson LL.B
In light of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's arrest on 19 February 2026, here is a clear explanation of the doctrine of sovereign immunity in the United Kingdom and why it offers him no defence — either now or for any acts committed while he was still a prince. I look at this issue as a lawyer and make no comment upon the politics of the case or otherwise.
The Arrest in Brief
On his 66th birthday, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (formerly HRH Prince Andrew, Duke of York) was arrested at Wood Farm on the Sandringham estate in Norfolk by Thames Valley Police. He was detained on suspicion of misconduct in public office, a serious common-law offence.
The trigger was the latest batch of US-released Jeffrey Epstein files, which appear to show that, while serving as the UK's unpaid Special Representative for International Trade and Investment (2001–2011), he shared official or confidential government information with Epstein.
He was held for several hours, then released under investigation the same evening. No charges have been filed yet; searches were carried out at addresses in Berkshire and Norfolk. The investigation is not about sexual allegations (those were settled civilly with Virginia Giuffre in 2022 without admission of liability). It focuses squarely on alleged abuse of his public position.
King Charles III immediately issued a statement supporting "the full, fair and proper process" and offering the monarchy's "full and wholehearted support and co-operation." Andrew was stripped of all official royal titles in October 2025.
What is the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity in the UK?
Sovereign immunity is the ancient constitutional principle that "the King can do no wrong." In modern terms:
The reigning monarch personally (currently King Charles III) enjoys absolute immunity from criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits in UK courts.
This means the King literally cannot be charged with any crime, no matter how serious — even, as 19th-century constitutional scholar A.V. Dicey famously wrote, "shooting the Prime Minister through the head."
The monarch cannot be compelled to give evidence in court.
This immunity is personal to the sovereign while they hold the Crown. It does not extend automatically to other members of the royal family.
There are two narrow extensions:
1.Duke of Cornwall immunity — The Prince of Wales (currently Prince William) enjoys certain legal protections in his capacity as Duke of Cornwall (mainly around property, taxation, and some minor offences within the Duchy).
2.State Immunity Act 1978 — This gives the head of state and "members of his family forming part of his household" immunity in certain contexts. UK courts have interpreted "household" very narrowly; it does not cover adult children of the monarch in general.
Real-world proof that other royals have no blanket immunity:
Princess Anne was prosecuted (and convicted) in 2002 for her dogs biting two children.
Prince Philip was investigated after a 2019 car crash; the CPS decided not to prosecute, but the process was followed.
Numerous speeding or minor offences by royals have resulted in cautions, fines, or points on licences.
Police normally require permission to enter private royal estates (Sandringham, Balmoral, etc.), but in this case they did enter and arrest Andrew — showing that traditional courtesies do not create legal immunity.
Could Sovereign Immunity Be Used as a Defence for Acts Committed While He Was a Prince?
No. Not then, and not now.
1.Andrew was never the sovereign. When he served as trade envoy (2001–2011), his mother Queen Elizabeth II was the monarch. Sovereign immunity belonged to her, not to him. Princes and other royals have always been subject to the ordinary criminal law.
2.The alleged offence occurred in a public office he held by government appointment. Misconduct in public office applies precisely to people who abuse positions of public trust. As a special representative, he was performing a governmental role, not a purely private or "royal" one. That makes him more accountable, not less.
3.Stripping of titles in 2025 removed any lingering symbolic protection. He is now legally Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, a private citizen who happens to be the King's brother. Former royal status confers no immunity whatsoever, as confirmed by multiple legal experts in the past 24 hours.
4.No retroactive immunity. There is no legal mechanism by which someone who was once a prince can later claim the sovereign's personal immunity for earlier acts. The doctrine is tied to the office of the Crown at the time, not to bloodline or past titles.
In short, the arrest itself proves the point: UK police and prosecutors treated him exactly as they would any other 66-year-old man suspected of a serious offence. The King's swift endorsement of the investigation further signals that the monarchy will not invoke any special protection.
Why This Matters
This is the first arrest of a senior royal in modern British history (the last was King Charles I in 1649, who was subsequently executed).
Sovereign immunity remains a peculiar constitutional relic that protects only the person of the monarch. For everyone else in the royal family — past, present, or former — the ordinary rules apply. The defence, if Andrew is charged, must attack the authenticity of the Epstein material.
Here is a very good article going into detail about the doctrine of sovereign immunity:
