The officer went on: “AMW is a nominated suspect in a number of serious offences. It is a matter of public record that he has previously not engaged with other investigative strands relating to his alleged involvement with Jeffrey Epstein.
“In addition, I consider that AMW, a staff member acting on directions from AMW or his legal team may request to see judicial authority before entry is gained (the scenario where AMW is not present but his legal team are).
“AMW or his legal team may seek to advance that the property belongs to someone else (the King) and that separate legal permission should be sought. This places matters potentially into the a (sic) consent scenario, but obtaining such consent may not be expeditious and seeking to do so in advance may frustrate the nature and purpose of the search.”
Concerns over nobody being home
The documents revealed that Thames Valley Police was also concerned about what would happen if officers turned up to the property without a search warrant and there was nobody there.
The DCI wrote: “Further, it may be the case that there is no one at the property and in such a scenario, which would inevitably involve the large showing out of police resources, with the risk of media attention, my overall objectives would again be frustrated and delayed.
“Finally, if the investigation team relied solely on consent, there would be a continuing risk that this consent could be withdrawn or limited at any point, or subsequently challenged later in proceedings. Given the gravity of this investigation, I need certainty of legal basis upon which to proceed.”
The officer went on: “My investigative objectives are to secure relevant evidence in a timely and secure fashion. Failure to do so risks loss of evidence and a consequent loss of public trust and confidence in the investigation. AMW and or his representatives may or may not be in a position to grant access to the premises, either way I cannot risk not having an appropriate legal power to achieve my objectives.”
