Images later surfaced appearing to show unmarked police vehicles arriving at Wood Farm in Norfolk, with plain-clothed officers seen outside the royal residence.

Police had previously confirmed they were reviewing allegations that a woman was trafficked to the UK by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein to have a sexual encounter with Andrew, who turns 66 today.

The development follows the release of three million federal documents by the US Department of Justice relating to Epstein’s abuse crimes, many of which highlighted his association with Andrew.

Andrew has faced longstanding allegations of sexual misconduct, all of which he has denied. Among them were claims that he had sex with the late Virginia Giuffre when she was a minor after she had been trafficked by Epstein.

In 2022, he paid an undisclosed sum to settle a civil sexual assault claim brought by Giuffre.

Last year, ahead of the first tranche of Epstein-related files being made public, King Charles III stripped Andrew of his remaining royal titles.

Within the released documents, Andrew’s name reportedly appeared hundreds of times, including in private correspondence and photographs. One particularly controversial image showed him crouched on all fours over an unidentified woman.

However, it is important to stress that being named or pictured in the files does not in itself indicate wrongdoing.

The father-of-two has also been accused of passing sensitive information to Epstein — who died by suicide in 2019 — during his time as the UK’s trade envoy. It is this allegation that has led to Andrew’s reported arrest.

What is misconduct in public office?

According to the Institute For Government, misconduct in public office refers to an offence involving the abuse or neglect of powers or responsibilities by someone holding public office.

The offence can apply to individuals in government or public sector positions, including elected officials, civil servants, members of the police and judiciary, and working members of the Royal Family. In the most serious cases, it carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

In a fresh statement, Thames Valley Police said: “As part of the investigation, we have today (19/2) arrested a man in his sixties from Norfolk on suspicion of misconduct in public office and are carrying out searches at addresses in Berkshire and Norfolk.

“The man remains in police custody at this time. We will not be naming the arrested man, as per national guidance.”

The statement continued: “Please also remember that this case is now active so care should be taken with any publication to avoid being in contempt of court.”

Assistant Chief Constable Oliver Wright also addressed the media, stating: “Following a thorough assessment, we have now opened an investigation into this allegation of misconduct in public office.

“It is important that we protect the integrity and objectivity of our investigation as we work with our partners to investigate this alleged offence. We understand the significant public interest in this case, and we will provide updates at the appropriate time.”

Legal insight into the charge

Simarjot Singh Judge, Managing Partner at Judge Law, has offered further clarity on how a misconduct in public office charge could apply in this case.

“Misconduct in public office is a serious common law offence which requires prosecutors to show that a public officer deliberately breached their duty in a way that represents a serious abuse of public trust,” he explained.

“It is not enough for there to have been an error of judgment – the conduct must be wilful and sufficiently serious.”

Judge added: “If sensitive government material was shared without proper authority, the question would be whether that amounted to a deliberate breach of official duty. Prosecutors would need to establish intent, seriousness and whether the conduct crossed the threshold into criminal wrongdoing.

“An arrest under suspicion does not mean a charge has been brought, and it does not imply guilt.”

He concluded: “Police must gather and assess evidence before deciding whether the case meets the charging threshold.”

More updates are expected.