EXCLUSIVE: Experts Declare Victims' Testimonies Are Needed to Nail Andrew Windsor Over Epstein 'Flight Trafficking'
Andrew Windsor may escape being charged if victims don't testify.
Feb. 24 2026, Published 3:20 p.m. ET
Andrew Windsor may have been arrested over his past association with Jeffrey Epstein – but RadarOnline.com can reveal legal experts said any realistic prospect of the disgraced royal being slapped with charges linked to the pedophile's possible s-- trafficking activities in the U.K. hinges on new victims coming forward to give direct testimony.
Eleven police forces across Britain are understood to be currently reviewing allegations connecting Andrew to Epstein, the convicted s-- offender who died in 2019 aged 66 while awaiting trial in the United States.
Pressure Mounts Over UK Trafficking Claims
Former prime minister Gordon Brown wrote to six police forces urging them to examine passenger manifests.
Sources said some of the inquiries center on claims women were trafficked through airports and RAF bases in Britain during visits to the U.K. linked to Epstein's private jet operations. But despite renewed political pressure and the release of extensive U.S. Department of Justice files on Epstein, investigators have yet to launch coordinated criminal proceedings tied to trafficking claims on British soil.
Former prime minister Gordon Brown has written to six police forces, including Scotland Yard, urging them to examine passenger manifests and related documents disclosed by U.S. authorities. Brown has also called for detectives to interview Andrew, 66, as part of a criminal investigation into whether Epstein trafficked women to Britain for sexual exploitation. Andrew has previously denied any wrongdoing.
He has been released "under investigation" after cops in the U.K. last week quizzed him for nearly 12 hours in custody after he was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office following claims the disgraced ex-duke fed Epstein highly sensitive information while working as a trade envoy for Britain.
The Difficultly in Charging Andrew Windsor Explained
A BBC investigation identified 87 flights linked to Epstein that involved U.K. airports.
Experts said much of the difficulty of now hitting Andrew with charges lies in the passage of time and the fragility of evidence against him when it comes to the time he spent with Epstein. Some flights linked to Epstein date back more than two decades.
Under current retention policies, RAF passenger manifests are kept for only three months before destruction, while commercial airline records are typically retained for six to seven years. Several flight logs in the U.S. files on Epstein identify accompanying passengers merely as "females," but with no further detail provided.
In December, a BBC investigation identified 87 flights linked to Epstein that arrived at or departed from U.K. airports between the early 1990s and 2018. Among them were journeys involving British women, including one who later testified against Ghislaine Maxwell in the United States and was recorded as having traveled on more than 10 flights paid for by Epstein between 1999 and 2006.
Scotland Yard has confirmed that, to date, no new victims have come forward to report sexual offenses within its jurisdiction. A spokesperson said there have been "no new criminal allegations" made to the Met regarding sexual offenses said to have occurred in London.
Thames Valley Police, which is separately investigating Andrew over allegations of misconduct in public office related to his time as trade envoy, has not announced any trafficking charges.
What Is Needed to Prosecute Disgraced Royal
The U.S. Department of Justice have released extensive files regarding Epstein’s jet operations.
Legal specialists said documentary evidence alone is unlikely to meet the threshold for prosecution. One senior barrister said: "Passenger lists and records of who traveled where may create a troubling narrative, but they do not, on their own, establish that a crime was committed. At best, they show proximity and opportunity. That is a long way from meeting the criminal standard of proof."
The barrister continued: "For any prosecution to be viable in a British court, investigators would need a witness prepared to give clear, first-hand evidence about specific conduct that took place within this jurisdiction. It is far from enough to suggest that someone was present on a flight or in a country. The law requires testimony that connects identifiable acts to identifiable people, backed by admissible evidence. Without that, the case remains speculative rather than prosecutable."
Another criminal law expert said, "In practical terms, the Crown Prosecution Service cannot move forward on inference alone. However troubling the surrounding material may appear, a prosecution requires a complainant who is prepared to make a formal statement and, crucially, to stand by that account in court."
The expert added, "The evidential threshold in serious criminal matters is high by design. Prosecutors must be satisfied there is a realistic prospect of conviction. Without a victim willing to provide direct evidence of what happened, when it happened, and where it happened, that threshold becomes extraordinarily difficult to meet. Documentary trails and historical associations may prompt investigation, but they rarely suffice on their own to sustain charges."
Never Miss an
Daily updates from the heart of Hollywood, right to your inbox
By entering your email and clicking Sign Up, you’re agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Scotland Yard confirmed that no new victims reported sexual offenses within its jurisdiction.
A third source familiar with the multi-force inquiries against Andrew said: "The documentation relating to Epstein's flights can certainly prompt scrutiny and generate legitimate lines of inquiry, but paperwork alone does not translate into a criminal indictment. It may point investigators in a direction, yet it does not by itself establish an offense."
The insider added: "What would materially shift the position is the emergence of a new witness or witnesses willing to provide sworn evidence on the record about trafficking conduct that allegedly took place on British soil. A first-hand account, subject to cross-examination and capable of being corroborated, would transform the evidential landscape. Without that, the material remains indicative rather than decisive."
