Americas

What to know about Prince Andrew’s sexual abuse lawsuit in the US


It is an unprecedented state of affairs for a senior British royal — the third youngster (and reportedly the favourite son) of Queen Elizabeth II — and units up a dramatic collection of authorized proceedings that may entice consideration all over the world and will have main ramifications for Buckingham Palace.

Giuffre alleges that she was trafficked by convicted intercourse offender and disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein and compelled to carry out intercourse acts with the royal — claims that Andrew denies.

She is in search of damages “in an amount to be determined at trial,” in addition to attorneys’ charges and different additional aid “as the Court may deem just and proper,” in accordance with the lawsuit.

Andrew’s attorneys filed a movement to dismiss late final 12 months, however that effort failed on Wednesday they usually should now put together the prince to face a New York courtroom.

In his ruling, decide Lewis Kaplan wrote that “Giuffre’s complaint is neither ‘unintelligible’ nor ‘vague’ nor ‘ambiguous.’ It alleges discrete incidents of sexual abuse in particular circumstances at three identifiable locations. It identifies to whom it attributes that sexual abuse.”

The prince’s repute has already been severely tarnished by his relationship with Epstein — and his friendship with Epstein’s former companion, Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted in December for her function in facilitating Epstein’s abuse.

Here’s what you could know concerning the case, and what comes subsequent.

What are Giuffre’s claims?

Giuffre, an alleged sufferer of Epstein, says she was forced to perform sex acts with Andrew. She says she was trafficked by Epstein and compelled to have intercourse together with his mates — together with the prince — at a time when she was underage (17) within the US.

Giuffre says the assaults occurred in London, New York and the US Virgin Islands, that Andrew was conscious she was a minor on the time, and that she had been trafficked by Epstein.

In claims made previous to submitting her lawsuit, Giuffre alleged that in 2001 Epstein introduced her to London, the place she was launched to Prince Andrew and went dancing at a nightclub with Epstein, his then-girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell and the prince.

In a BBC interview broadcast in 2019, Giuffre stated she had been taken to the Tramp nightclub the place, Giuffre alleged, Andrew requested her to bounce and was “sweating all over me.”

Andrew, 61, has persistently denied the claims, telling the BBC in 2019: “It didn’t happen. I can absolutely categorically tell you it never happened. I have no recollection of ever meeting this lady, none whatsoever.”

He claimed in the identical interview that he couldn’t sweat, on account of a uncommon medical situation, and that on the night time he’s alleged to have had intercourse with Giuffre, he was in reality taking his daughter to a celebration at a Pizza Express restaurant in Woking, southwest of London.

Giuffre’s attorneys requested Andrew in courtroom filings to supply paperwork proving each of these claims. But Andrew’s group responded that he was unable to take action, as a result of he has no paperwork proving a medical situation that stops sweating, and couldn’t identification anybody he encountered on the pizza restaurant.

Where do issues stand within the courtroom case?

When the lawsuit was filed in August, Giuffre’s attorneys stated the damage from the alleged incidents was “severe and lasting.”
Andrew’s authorized group asked for the lawsuit to be dismissed, saying it violated the phrases of a confidential settlement settlement Giuffre made with Epstein in 2009.

That settlement was unsealed on January 3; it reveals that Epstein paid Giuffre $500,000 to drop the case with none admission of legal responsibility or fault, and that Giuffre agreed to “remise, release, acquit, satisfy and forever discharge” events and “any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant.” It doesn’t explicitly title Andrew or any others.

Andrew misplaced that effort on Wednesday; Kaplan dominated that “the 2009 agreement cannot be said to demonstrate, clearly and unambiguously, the parties intended the instrument ‘directly,’ ‘primarily,’ or ‘substantially,’ to benefit Prince Andrew.”

It was not their first try and have the lawsuit dismissed; in September Andrew’s attorneys claimed the papers had not been properly served and that the case must be thrown out because of this.

Now Andrew has till July 14 to doubtlessly reply questions concerning the case beneath oath, following a ruling made by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan final 12 months. The scheduling order signed by the decide in New York implies that if attorneys for Giuffre wish to query Andrew, they need to accomplish that exterior of courtroom and submit the interview by that date.

The ruling on Wednesday provides Andrew restricted choices on how one can proceed.

He might nonetheless attempt to negotiate a settlement with Giuffre to keep away from the case going right into a trial. He has repeatedly and categorically denied her allegations.

He might additionally select to face the trial, which might open him as much as extra scrutiny over his alleged previous conduct.

Another choice is to not interact additional and refuse to undergo the jurisdiction of the courtroom. However, that may open him as much as a doubtlessly expensive default judgment.

What is Andrew’s authorized protection?

Andrew has denied the allegations towards him, telling the BBC in 2019: It did not occur.”

Andrew’s attorneys have also attempted to shift the narrative, alleging in a blistering court filing in October that Giuffre’s claims are motivated by money. CNN contacted Giuffre’s lawyers in relation to the fresh claims; in their initial filings for the case, her attorneys said Andrew had inflicted “emotional misery” on Giuffre that was “extreme and lasting.”

“Giuffre has initiated this baseless lawsuit towards Prince Andrew to realize one other payday at his expense,” Andrew’s lawyers wrote in the documents filed on October 29 — the clearest sign yet that they are planning to go on the offensive as they battle to save the reputation of the Queen’s third child.

The documents acknowledge that Giuffre “could be a sufferer of sexual abuse by the hands of Jeffrey Epstein … and nothing can excuse, nor totally seize, the abhorrence and gravity of Epstein’s monstrous conduct towards Giuffre, if that’s the case.”

Who is Prince Andrew? The 'spare heir' facing a sexual abuse lawsuit

But the papers additionally search to color Giuffre as money-driven and accuse her of “willful recruitment and trafficking of younger ladies for sexual abuse.”

They allege that Giuffre “was skilled to and did, in reality, recruit different younger ladies into Epstein’s intercourse trafficking ring,” and has since “milked the publicity for all she might,” a dramatic escalation in the case that hinted at an unsavory round of legal battles ahead.

Giuffre’s lawyer, David Boies, did not respond at the time to CNN’s request for comment on the allegations in the court documents filed by Andrew’s lawyers.

In her attorneys’ preliminary submitting, Giuffre stated she feared disobeying Epstein, Maxwell and Prince Andrew “on account of their highly effective connections, wealth and authority.”
In late October, Boies stated Andrew’s attorneys’ movement to dismiss “fails to confront the intense allegations” the prince faces, Reuters reported.

“Most folks might solely dream of acquiring the sums of cash that Giuffre has secured for herself over time,” Andrew’s lawyers said in their October 29 document. “This presents a compelling motive for Giuffre to proceed submitting frivolous lawsuits towards people akin to Prince Andrew.”

Prince Andrew’s lawyers declined to comment when contacted previously by CNN.

Will Andrew have to face questions himself?

Andrew has previously been accused of not cooperating with attempts to interview him as part of the investigation into the alleged sex trafficking ring Epstein and Maxwell are alleged to have operated.

A spokesman for the US attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York declined to comment.

As Giuffre’s court case continues, he will likely have to reckon with the mid-July deadline to answer questions under oath.

Until then, though, he is not scheduled to appear in court and is unlikely to speak to the media about the case.

The prince stepped back from public duties and has stored a comparatively low public profile since a much-derided television interview with the BBC’s Newsnight program in November 2019.

What does this imply for the royals?

The long-running allegations dealing with Andrew have dramatically tarnished his public standing. In their movement to dismiss the case, his attorneys acknowledge his “sullied repute.”
Facing pressure from the public and the media within the wake of the Newsnight interview, the Prince stepped back from royal duties in late 2019.
The civil suit against Prince Andrew has wider implications for the British royal family
Aside from the times following the death of his father, Prince Philip, in early 2021, he has hardly ever appeared in public since. He was even absent from publicly-released photographs of his elder daughter Beatrice’s wedding ceremony in 2020.
The scandal has wider implications for the royal family, which was concurrently been pressured to climate criticism over Andrew’s case and claim of racism from Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex over the previous 12 months.

British tabloids usually seek advice from the duke because the Queen’s favourite youngster, so his prolonged affiliation with Epstein and Giuffre’s allegations towards him sign a hefty fall from grace.

While the monarch and different senior royals have to date prevented injury to their very own reputations because of the Giuffre case, the prospect of Andrew being pressured to reply questions beneath oath will likely be an unwelcome one for the broader establishment.

CNN’s Lauren Said-Moorhouse contributed to this report.



Source link

Back to top button