Request callback





    Blog

    The Prince Andrew sexual assault case will proceed after a judge refused his application to dismiss the proceedings.

    Get A Free Case EvaluationHave a legal issue?

    Submit your inquiry to speak to a Senior Lawyer






      prince andrew

      Criminal Lawyer Explains the Prince Andrew Sexual Assault Case

      The Prince Andrew sexual assault case will proceed after a judge refused his application to dismiss the proceedings.

      The case is centred around allegations that the Duke of York sexually assaulted a female when she was 17 years old.

      The complainant, Virginia Giuffre, had signed a deal in 2009 with Jeffrey Epstein. The 61-year-old’s lawyers had argued that this should have precluded her from bringing the proceedings.

      The trial is expected to be listed at the end of the year.

      Prince Andrew Sexual Assault Case

      Virginia Giuffre launched the action against Prince Andrew claiming he sexually abused her in 2001.

      Filed court documents revealed that Ms Giuffre said she was a victim of sex trafficking and abuse by late billionaire financier Epstein.

      In the course of this abuse, she alleged that she was lent out to other powerful men, including Prince Andrew. She claims to have been abused in Epstein’s New York mansion and on his private island in the US Virgin Islands.

      The Duke was questioned about the allegations during an interview in 2019. There he claimed that he had no recollection of ever meeting Virginia Giuffre.

      However, a photo has been revealed that shows the 61-year-old Duke with his arm around her.

      He also denied ever having sex with her in the US and UK. He has consistently denied the sexual assault allegations.

      Prince Andrew’s sexual assault lawyers argued that the sexual assault case should be dismissed. This was due to deal she signed in 2009 with Jeffrey Epstein.

      The deal included a clause that she could not to sue anyone else connected to Mr Epstein.

      At the virtual hearing, they argued that the Duke of York was a “potential defendant” as defined by the agreement.

      Ms Giuffre’s lawyers responded by saying that only the parties to the settlement agreement could benefit from it, and not a “third party”.

      Judge Lewis A Kaplan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the Duke’s motion in a 46-page decision. However, His Honour made it clear that his decision did not determine the “truth or falsity” of Ms Giuffre’s complaint. He noted that his ruling did not consider the “defendant’s efforts to cast doubt on the truth of Ms Giuffre’s allegations, even though his efforts would be permissible at trial”.

      In dismissing the motion, disagreed with the argument that the case against Prince Andrew was “legally insufficient” and could not be heard at a future trial.

      He found that he was not in a position to consider whether Prince Andrew was covered by the settlement agreement, describing it as “ambiguous”.

      He wrote, “In a similar vein and for similar reasons, it is not open to the court now to decide, as a matter of fact, just what the parties to the release in the 2009 settlement agreement signed by Ms Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein actually meant.”

      Prince Andrew’s lawyers could potentially launch an appeal against the decision. They would require Judge Kaplan’s permission to do so.

      It means the case against the Duke of York, 61, could be heard in court later this year.

      Virginia Giuffre and Prince Andrew Comment

      Both Virginia Giuffre and Prince Andrew commented on the outcome through their legal representatives.

      Ms Giuffre said she was “pleased” that the Duke’s motion to dismiss the case had been denied and “that evidence will now be taken concerning her claims against him”.

      A statement issued by her lawyer went on to state, “She looks forward to a judicial determination of the merits of those claims.”

      Buckingham Palace said it would not comment on an ongoing legal matter.

      What Happens Next?

      Judge Kaplan has set a timetable for the filing of documents in advance of the trial later in 2022.

      He also enquired with the parties as to whether he will be asked to send formal requests to the UK for assistance from judges in London with obtaining evidence.

      The parties were given until mid-May 2022 to confirm what witnesses will be called for each side.

      Virginia Giuffre’s lawyers have requested disclosure of certain evidence from Prince Andrew. This includes information about the medical condition 20 years ago that prevented the Duke from sweating.

      They have also asked for evidence that verifies that he was at Pizza Express in Woking on the day Ms Giuffre says he sexually abused her.

      The parties have been ordered to file their depositions by mid-July 2022. This means a formal recording of their evidence, on oath, out of court.

      The trial is expected to be listed at the end of the year, with the Judge stating, “I will look at the possibility of September, but in any case October through December as being the target here.”

      Virginia Roberts Giuffre Credibility Questioned

      Prince Andrew “unequivocally” denied the allegations and accused her of profiting from “frivolous” lawsuits and “salacious” media coverage.

      Prince Andrew has retained high-powered sexual assault lawyers who have defended well-known celebrities facing similar allegations, including director Bryan Singer and actor Armie Hammer.

      “Most people could only dream of obtaining the sums of money that Giuffre has secured for herself over the years,” his lawyers wrote in court documents.

      “This presents a compelling motive for Giuffre to continue filing frivolous lawsuits against individuals such as Prince Andrew, whose sullied reputation is only the latest collateral damage of the Epstein scandal.”

      The Duke’s lawyers suggested that Ms Giuffre had initiated the “baseless” lawsuit to “achieve another payday at his expense and at the expense of those closest to him”.

      Several news articles have also questioned Guthrie’s character. A New York Daily News story referred to her as a “money-hungry sex kitten”.

      The court also heard about a new lawsuit filed against Ms Giuffre by artist Rina Oh Amen, based on Guthrie allegedly defaming her on Twitter in 2020 by saying she had recruited girls for Epstein to abuse.

      It was suggested that the case would touch on “similar issues” and that witnesses could overlap across them both.

      Comments are closed.

      Ask a question now!