What to know about the charge that former Prince Andrew and Peter Mandelson could face

Former Prince Andrew and Ex-UK Ambassador Arrested in Epstein-Linked Investigation

In a dramatic turn of events that has sent shockwaves through Britain’s political establishment, two high-profile figures—the former Prince Andrew and Peter Mandelson, a veteran Labour politician who once served as the UK’s ambassador to Washington—have been arrested in connection with their ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Both men are under investigation for the same offense: misconduct in public office, an ancient legal concept that legal experts now describe as problematically vague and outdated. While neither has been charged with any crime yet, their arrests have spotlighted significant questions about accountability in public service.

The former prince, now known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, and Mandelson were questioned separately, with authorities releasing few details about the interrogations. However, recently released US government documents suggest both maintained close relationships with Epstein that may have crossed serious ethical and legal boundaries.

According to these files, Mountbatten-Windsor allegedly provided Epstein with confidential trade reports and other sensitive documents during his tenure as the UK’s trade envoy from 2001 to 2011. This position, while prestigious, was unpaid except for travel expenses—a detail that could complicate the prosecution’s case in establishing whether he formally held “public office.”

The documents paint an equally troubling picture of Mandelson’s alleged actions. They suggest the former Business Secretary shared an internal government report with Epstein and reportedly promised to lobby for reduced taxes on bankers’ bonuses approximately 15 years ago. Both men have previously denied any wrongdoing and have not commented on these latest allegations.

The Crown Prosecution Service, which handles criminal investigations in England and Wales, defines misconduct in public office as “serious willful abuse or neglect of the power or responsibilities of the public office held.” For a conviction, prosecutors must establish a direct connection between the alleged misconduct and an abuse of official responsibilities—a task experts describe as notoriously difficult.

If convicted, the offense carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, though such severe penalties are rare. Prosecutors now face the challenge of determining whether the evidence gathered meets the high threshold needed to bring formal charges against either man.

The Law Commission, an independent body that recommends legal reforms to the UK government, has long criticized this offense as ill-defined and overly broad. For years, they have advocated replacing it with more specific statutes that would bring clarity to what constitutes abuse of public trust.

“The law is in need of reform, in order to ensure that public officials are appropriately held to account for misconduct committed in connection with their official duties,” the Commission states on its website.

Critics also point to a troubling pattern in how the law has been applied historically. According to the Law Commission, most prosecutions have targeted low to mid-ranking officials such as police and prison officers, rather than senior government officials or politicians. The current high-profile cases represent a departure from this trend.

Legal experts remain skeptical about the likelihood of convictions. Marcus Johnstone, managing director of PCD Solicitors, a firm not involved in either case, described the bar for conviction as “extremely high” and expressed doubt that either investigation would result in criminal charges.

“It must be noted that cases involving government ministers or trade envoys charged with misconduct in public office are extremely rare, and there is no real guidance as to the expected sentence,” Johnstone explained. He suggested that if convicted, sentences would likely range from one to ten years in prison, far short of the maximum penalty.

Both Mountbatten-Windsor and Mandelson were released after questioning, indicating the preliminary nature of the investigation. “Although an investigation is now taking place,” Johnstone cautioned, “we are still a long way away from a potential prosecution.”

The cases continue to unfold against the backdrop of ongoing revelations about Epstein’s extensive network of powerful connections, raising broader questions about accountability, transparency, and the ethical obligations of those in positions of public trust.