Peter Mandelson has strongly condemned the Metropolitan Police following his arrest on Monday, claiming detectives wrongly believed he was planning to flee the country. The former Labour peer was taken into custody at a London police station and released on bail early Tuesday morning, despite a prior agreement that he would attend a voluntary interview in March regarding allegations he passed sensitive government information to convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Lawyers representing Mandelson issued a statement through Mishcon de Reya challenging Scotland Yard to provide evidence justifying the Peter Mandelson arrest. They insisted the action was prompted by a “baseless” suggestion that he planned to move abroad permanently, describing the claim as having “absolutely no truth whatsoever.” The Metropolitan Police received intelligence suggesting Mandelson might be planning a trip to the British Virgin Islands, though the territory maintains an extradition agreement with the United Kingdom.
Intelligence Behind the Peter Mandelson Arrest Decision
According to sources familiar with the matter, detectives assessed the intelligence source and deemed it sufficiently credible to warrant immediate action rather than waiting for the scheduled voluntary interview. The Metropolitan Police decided to take no chances and proceeded with the arrest. Upon his release, authorities imposed travel restrictions as part of Mandelson’s bail conditions, though it remains unclear whether he was required to surrender his passport.
In messages sent to friends around 4am Tuesday, just hours after his release, Mandelson questioned “who or what” was behind the claims about his alleged travel plans. He characterized the suggestion as “complete fiction” and noted that police were told they had to “improvise an arrest.” Reports suggesting that Lord Speaker Michael Forsyth was involved in passing information to Scotland Yard were fiercely denied by parliamentary authorities, who called such suggestions “entirely false and without foundation.”
Political Fallout and Government Response
Meanwhile, Downing Street is preparing for the release of a Cabinet Office “due diligence” report as early as next week, which sources say warned Prime Minister Keir Starmer of serious “reputational risk” regarding Mandelson’s appointment as UK ambassador to Washington. The former peer was sacked from the position last September over his links with Epstein and subsequently departed from the Labour Party and House of Lords. Officials indicated the document could prove “very difficult” for the prime minister, particularly given his response at the time involved asking former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney to discuss the report’s contents with Mandelson.
A government source acknowledged the controversial appointment, stating that Mandelson “lied during the recruitment process” and that information known at the time of his sacking was not available when he was first appointed. The Cabinet Office document is expected to be among the most damaging papers included in the first release of materials relating to the Mandelson appointment. However, the government faces restrictions on releasing further information while the police investigation continues.
Broader Epstein Investigation Developments
Additionally, the government has bowed to pressure from MPs to release documents relating to the 2001 appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor as a British trade envoy. Government sources from that period suggested the request came directly from Buckingham Palace and was approved by ministers as a formality. The process of releasing these documents is being led by the Department for Business and Trade, though officials warn it could take weeks or months due to logistical complexities and the need to avoid compromising ongoing police inquiries.
Police investigating Mountbatten-Windsor announced Tuesday evening that searches at a property in Berkshire related to misconduct in public office allegations had concluded. The investigation continues to examine whether his unpaid trade envoy role constituted public office, a determination that could prove crucial to any potential prosecution.
The timeline for releasing additional documents remains uncertain, with officials emphasizing their commitment to transparency while ensuring they do not interfere with active police investigations. The Cabinet Office is recruiting internal volunteers to expedite the review process, though some materials exist only in paper form, complicating the effort.
