UK police have made the embarrassing concession that search warrants they secured to search ‌Andrew Mountbatten-Windor’s properties were “unlawful”.

Thames Valley Police said on Thursday (UK time) that it accepted the warrants had not been properly granted by the judge —  citing a procedural error in which the wrong section of the legislation was used.

However, the investigation into the former prince’s alleged leaking of government documents to Jeffrey Epstein would continue and the material police had obtained from his properties would still be kept.

Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested on February 19 on suspicion of misconduct in public office and police searched two of his homes in Sandringham, eastern England, and Windsor.

He was suspected of leaking confidential government documents to Epstein when Mountbatten-Windsor was a United Kingdom trade representative, ‌between 2001 ⁠and 2011.

Police have not charged him and Mountbatten-Windsor has denied any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein, also saying he regrets their friendship.

Mountbatten-Windsor applied for the search warrants to be quashed and Thames ​Valley Police ‌said it accepted that they had not been properly granted.

“We accept ​the position that the initial court’s decision to issue warrants under the specific piece of legislation used was incorrect and therefore these ​must ​be legally quashed,” a ​Thames Valley police spokesperson said.

“Legal proceedings are ‌currently ongoing to decide how material seized during the searches will be managed and whether we can lawfully retain it in support of our ongoing investigation.”

Justice Nicholas Hilliard said that the Thames Valley police had made a significant error in applying for the warrant when they searched the properties of Mountbatten-Windsor.

His lawyers asked the High Court judge to invalidate the warrants under which those searches were conducted.

Hilliard said the parties had agreed to invalidate the warrants before the hearing on Thursday.

Mountbatten-Windsor was not in court for the hearing.

Stephens, of the Howard Kennedy firm in London, described the hearing as a preliminary skirmish in the broader legal battle.

“It’s the first step of Prince Andrew and his lawyers saying, ‘Actually, this is tainted evidence. It was obtained inappropriately,”’ Stephens said.

“Therefore it should be excluded from any criminal trial.”

King Charles stripped Mountbatten-Windsor of his princely title last year as he sought to shield the rest of the royal family from the continuing fallout from his younger brother’s links to Epstein.

-with AAP/AP