Wednesday, March 27

Prince Andrew Faces Trial After Judge Refuses to Dismiss Giuffre’s Case | Prince Andrew


Prince Andrew faces the possibility of testifying in a high-profile trial after a New York judge refused to dismiss a civil case on allegations that he sexually assaulted Virginia Giuffre when she was 17 years old.

Legal experts said the Duke of York “has no good options left” after he failed to have Giuffre’s case against him dismissed, and Manhattan Federal Court Judge Lewis Kaplan rejected his motion “in all aspects”.

The ruling could see Andrew, who vigorously denies the allegations, disclose aspects of his personal life in public hearing this fall.

One option to avoid such a sensational trial would be for the duke to settle out of court with Giuffre, possibly costing him millions, although there are suggestions that she would want her day at court.

However, such an arrangement could cause monumental damage to the reputation of the monarchy, as the duke has already been forced to withdraw from public life.

The news is a very unpleasant development for the royal family, coming just three days after all the details of the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations were revealed in June. Buckingham Palace declined to comment, saying: “We would not comment on what is an ongoing legal matter.”

In his detailed 46-page ruling, Kaplan rejected the argument made by Andrew’s legal team that Giuffre had waived his right to sue him under a previously secret $ 500,000 (£ 360,000) settlement he made with sex offender Jeffrey. Epstein. Giuffre alleges that Epstein trafficked her to have sex with multiple people, including Andrew.

At the conclusion of his written judgment, Kaplan said: “For the above reasons, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim or for a more final statement is denied in all respects.

Also Read  Political banality - Information

“Given the limited task of the court to rule on this petition, nothing in this opinion or previously in this proceeding can be interpreted as indicative of an opinion with respect to the veracity of the charges or counter-accusations or as to the intention of the parties in enter the 2009 agreement. “

Describing his reasons for denying the motion, Kaplan said the court was unable at this stage to consider the duke’s efforts to challenge Giuffre’s claims or whether he was covered by the settlement agreement, suggesting that these are issues for A judgment.

He said: “The 2009 agreement cannot be said to demonstrate, clearly and unequivocally, that the parties intended the instrument ‘directly’, ‘primarily’ or ‘substantially’ to benefit Prince Andrew.”

Andrew’s options are now tough and unappealing, according to legal watchers.

Nick Goldstone, Ince’s head of dispute resolution, said: “The ruling that dismissed Prince Andrew’s strike-out requests is very thorough and comprehensive. The apps seem to have done the prince more harm than good. “

The duke may seek an out-of-court settlement, although a no-liability settlement could be costly and Giuffre may not want to settle. You can also contest the case, but that means making a statement under oath, possibly giving oral testimony, during which you will be questioned on very personal matters.

You can also default, effectively ignoring the court case, but that would lead to a ruling against you.

Howard Kennedy’s media lawyer Mark Stephens told the BBC: “Andrew doesn’t have good options right now. He can’t make things better, so essentially I think he will have to participate in the trial process or he will have to reach an agreement, and that may well be his worst option. “

Also Read  Alicante also designs erotic toys

If he decides to contest, legal observers said the duke would be recommended to testify, although he cannot be compelled to do so. If he refused, “from a presentation perspective, that wouldn’t look good,” Goldstone said.

Andrew could file a motion to reconsider Kaplan’s ruling, or he could file an appeal directly with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Any appeal would delay the proceedings.

The duke is in the process of selling his £ 18 million Swiss ski chalet amid speculation that he needs the money for legal fees.

If the case goes to a full trial, he could be forced to call witnesses, which could include members of the royal family, particularly his daughter, Princess Beatrice. He argued in his disastrous 2019 BBC Newsnight interview that, on the night Giuffre cited, he went with Beatrice to a children’s party in the late afternoon at a Pizza Express in Woking. After the party, she says, she was home with her children all night.

The ruling deals another blow to the embattled prince, whose reputation and position within the royal family has already been tarnished by his friendship with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

He retired from public office shortly after the Newsnight interview, which failed to draw a line in his relationship with Epstein, a convicted sex offender who had former Presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump in his circle. Epstein committed suicide in a Manhattan jail after his arrest in July 2019 on sex trafficking charges.

Maxwell, 60, the daughter of the late British press titan Robert Maxwell, was found guilty on five counts of luring girls as young as 14 into Epstein’s world to sexually abuse him.

Also Read  Putin meditates his answer after the "no" to his main demand

Giuffre has claimed that the prince was “sweating profusely all over me” in a London nightclub the night they allegedly had a sexual encounter.

Andrew said in his interview with the BBC that Giuffre’s statement about his perspiration could not be true, stating: “I have a peculiar medical condition which is that i don’t sweat or I didn’t sweat at that time.

As part of Giuffre’s lawsuit, his legal team has requested documents showing whether Andrew can sweat or not.


www.theguardian.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *