Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor Details Confrontation with Balaclava-Wearing Man Near Sandringham Home in Court Statement
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has given a detailed account of a disturbing encounter near his Sandringham home in which a man wearing a balaclava confronted him and then chased after his vehicle. The former Duke of York’s witness statement was read out in court on Thursday as legal proceedings continued against the man accused of the incident.
The 66-year-old said the confrontation took place on 6 May while he was walking his dogs close to Marsh Farm, the property on the King’s Sandringham Estate in Norfolk where he has lived for several months. According to the statement, Mountbatten-Windsor spotted a car that he initially assumed belonged to press photographers. He and a member of his private security detail drove past the vehicle. A man then turned and faced him. The individual was wearing a balaclava that covered his face. Mountbatten-Windsor described the man as looking “out-of-place.” He noticed a loose dog running towards the figure. The man then appeared to recognise him and began sprinting after the vehicle as it drove away.
The statement formed a central part of a hearing at Westminster Magistrates’ Court. Alex Jenkinson, 39, originally from Stowmarket in Suffolk, faces a charge of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards Mountbatten-Windsor during the incident in the village of Wolferton. Prosecutors say the alleged behaviour caused the former royal to fear unlawful violence. Jenkinson denies the public order offence. He has also pleaded not guilty to a separate charge of using similar threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to cause fear or provoke unlawful violence against another man, Stephen Terry, in King’s Lynn on 5 May, the day before the Sandringham encounter.
Jenkinson pleaded guilty to a further charge of failing to provide a specimen of blood while in custody following his arrest on 6 May. After the incident he was detained under the Mental Health Act for approximately one month. Suffolk Police are separately applying for a civil Stalking Protection Order against him. The application relies on Mountbatten-Windsor’s evidence together with material recovered from searches of Jenkinson’s phone. Earlier court hearings have indicated that the phone data includes alleged searches relating to Mountbatten-Windsor, Sandringham and weapons.
Deputy Chief Magistrate Tan Ikram read extracts from the witness statement during Thursday’s hearing. The statement is expected to play a key role in both the criminal case and the protection order proceedings. The judge ruled that Mountbatten-Windsor, Stephen Terry and an eyewitness to the Norfolk incident must give evidence for a second time at the Stalking Protection Order hearing. Ikram said fairness required that Jenkinson be allowed to call and cross-examine those witnesses. An interim Stalking Protection Order already in place against Jenkinson was extended. A pre-trial hearing for the protection order application has been listed for 22 January at Loughborough Magistrates’ Court, with the final hearing scheduled for 16 February at Westminster Magistrates’ Court.
The criminal trial has been set for 21 December. Mountbatten-Windsor is expected to give his evidence by video link rather than appearing in person. Jenkinson remains on bail subject to strict conditions. He is prohibited from contacting Mountbatten-Windsor directly or indirectly, from approaching him, from entering Norfolk, and from going near a number of royal residences and sites including Sandringham, Buckingham Palace, Balmoral, Windsor and Highgrove.
Thursday’s hearing took an unusual turn when Jenkinson was prevented from entering the court building. He had arrived with his dog, Indie, and insisted on bringing the animal inside. His solicitor, Claire Howell, told the court that Jenkinson is currently homeless and living in temporary accommodation at a Travelodge. She said he could not leave the dog there and that the animal provides support because he suffers from ADHD. The judge was not provided with medical documentation confirming the need for a support animal. Ikram stated that the court accommodates people with ADHD and support animals when appropriate evidence is produced, but he was not prepared to allow a dog into the courtroom solely on the basis that the defendant was homeless and happened to have one. The hearing therefore proceeded in Jenkinson’s absence. Howell later indicated that temporary accommodation had been found where the dog could be left for future hearings and described the animal as well-behaved.
The original incident was reported to Norfolk Police shortly after 7.30pm on 6 May. Officers were called to Wolferton following reports of a man behaving in an intimidating manner in the village. Jenkinson was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence and possession of an offensive weapon. He was taken to King’s Lynn Police Investigation Centre for questioning. Mountbatten-Windsor and his protection officer both provided statements at the time. Contemporary reports indicated that the former Duke of York had been shaken by the encounter. Some accounts suggested a weapon, described in places as a crowbar or similar item, had been recovered from the suspect’s vehicle, though the precise nature of any weapon has not been central to the public order charge now before the court.
Marsh Farm became Mountbatten-Windsor’s residence after he left Royal Lodge in Windsor. The move followed the intensification of scrutiny over his association with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and related controversies. He was stripped of his remaining royal titles and styles by King Charles and no longer receives publicly funded police protection of the kind previously provided to senior working royals. He relies instead on private security arrangements. The May incident was not the first security concern reported near the property. In the weeks before the balaclava confrontation, there had been an episode in which individuals scaled a gate and attempted to look over fencing at the farmhouse.
The court proceedings have brought the May events back into public view at a time when Mountbatten-Windsor continues to live a largely private life on the Sandringham Estate. His witness statement offers the most detailed public account yet of what he experienced that evening. It describes a sequence that began with a seemingly ordinary dog walk, the sighting of a vehicle, a brief face-to-face encounter with a masked figure, and a sudden pursuit on foot after the car. The presence of the loose dog in the statement adds a further detail to the scene as he recalled it.
Jenkinson’s defence of the public order charge and his challenge to the Stalking Protection Order mean both matters will continue into the new year. The December criminal trial will require the former royal to give evidence remotely. The protection order application will involve further oral evidence from the same witnesses so that the defence can test their accounts. Phone evidence that allegedly includes searches connected to Mountbatten-Windsor and weapons is expected to feature in the proceedings, subject to any arguments about its admissibility and relevance.
The case highlights ongoing questions about the security arrangements for a high-profile individual who no longer holds royal status or the associated protective resources. Mountbatten-Windsor’s private security was present during the May incident and accompanied him as he left the scene. Police responded promptly after the report was made. The subsequent mental health detention of the suspect and the combination of criminal charges with a civil protection order application reflect the seriousness with which the authorities have treated the allegations.
As the legal process moves forward, the witness statement read in court this week provides the clearest picture so far of the events of 6 May from Mountbatten-Windsor’s perspective. A routine walk with his dogs near his Norfolk home ended with a masked man facing him and then running after the departing vehicle. That account will now be tested in both the criminal trial and the protection order hearings that lie ahead.
About The Author
