Epstein Survivor Claims Palace Hid 30,000 Emails Allegedly Showing Andrew Shared Confidential Government Info

An Epstein survivor has accused Buckingham Palace of failing to act on an archive of around 30,000 emails allegedly linked to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, claiming the material suggested the former royal shared confidential government information while serving as a UK trade envoy between 2001 and 2011.

The allegations came after the Royal Household was blamed for failing to handle material reportedly handed over in 2020, and whether it should have prompted earlier action. The claims, made by survivor Jess Michaels, have not been independently verified in full, and Buckingham Palace has not confirmed the contents of the emails, stating it cannot comment due to ongoing police inquiries.

Epstein Survivor Claims Palace Emails Were 'Sat On' for Years

According to the Independent, a large tranche of emails, allegedly drawn from a personal business contact of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, was passed to Lord Chamberlain Lord Peel in May 2020. Court documents cited in coverage of the claims stated that the archive contained communications that could have shown the former prince sharing sensitive government information during his time as a UK trade envoy.

Jess Michaels, who says she was raped by Jeffrey Epstein in 1991, previously said that she believes the Royal Household failed in its duty by not acting sooner. In her account, she argued that institutions often protect powerful figures while leaving victims to deal with the consequences.

'Six years ago, the palace knew Andrew wasn't just a problem; he could face a criminal investigation. And they sat on it,' she said, adding that the failure to intervene had broader moral consequences for survivors of Epstein's abuse. 'Protecting him meant doubting her. Virginia Roberts Giuffre was telling the truth, and she didn't live to see them admit it. That breaks my heart and it should break everyone's.'

Giuffre, who previously made allegations against Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, died last year. He has consistently denied the claims.

What Was in the Emails?

The emails are said to come from the time Andrew worked as a UK trade envoy between 2001 and 2011, when he represented the UK in overseas business and diplomatic meetings.

Some court documents suggest the emails may include messages that raised concerns about whether he shared confidential government information outside official channels. However, this has not been fully proven in court, and there has been no final legal ruling on what the emails actually show.

Andrew was arrested in February 2026 on suspicion of misconduct in a public office, linked to allegations that he passed sensitive information to Epstein. Separately, police in Thames Valley are also looking into other possible sexual misconduct claims as part of the wider investigation.

Buckingham Palace has said it cannot comment on the allegations involving the emails because police investigations are still ongoing.

Concerns Over Handling of Allegations and Institutional Accountability

Critics say these allegations raise concerns about how past claims have been handled and whether institutions are properly held accountable. Michaels argued that the way the emails were dealt with shows a pattern where victims feel ignored while powerful individuals are protected.

'I'm glad the UK is finally investigating,' she said. 'A little late, but it's the very least they could do.'

It was reported that the emails were given to senior Royal Household officials in 2020, but it is not clear what action, if any, was taken at the time. No official findings have confirmed wrongdoing based on them.

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor denies all allegations. His lawyers have not commented further on the latest claims.

UK's Penalty for Leaking Government Information

If a government official or institutional staff member is found to have unlawfully shared or leaked confidential government information, the punishment in the UK (and similarly in many democracies) depends on how serious the breach is and whether it involved national security, personal data, or official secrets.

Under the UK's Official Secrets Act 1989, the most serious cases—such as passing protected national security information to unauthorised individuals—can carry penalties of up to 14 years in prison. Even lower-level unauthorised disclosures can still lead to criminal prosecution, dismissal from public office, and a permanent ban from holding certain government roles.

If the information is not classified at the highest level, but still confidential (for example, internal government communications or sensitive diplomatic material), penalties may include misconduct in public office charges. That offence can also carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, although actual sentences are usually much lower depending on intent and harm caused.

In addition, disciplinary action, loss of pension rights, and civil service bans are also common outcomes.