It is an unprecedented situation for the older British royal king – the third child (and allegedly the most popular son) of Queen Elizabeth II. – and launches a dramatic series of lawsuits that will attract worldwide attention and could have far-reaching consequences for Buckingham Palace.
Giuffre claims that she was trafficked by a convicted sex offender and a disgraced financier, Jeffrey Epstein, and forced her to have sex with the royal family – a claim that Andrew denies.
According to the lawsuit, he seeks damages “to be determined by the court” as well as legal fees and other concessions “as the court may deem fair and just.”
Andrew’s lawyers filed for release late last year, but those efforts failed on Wednesday and the prince must now be prepared for trial in New York.
Judge Lewis Kaplan wrote in his ruling that “Giuffre’s complaint is neither ‘incomprehensible’, ‘vague’ nor ‘ambiguous’. It lists discreet cases of sexual abuse in specific circumstances in three identifiable places. He identifies to whom he attributes this sexual abuse. ”
The prince’s reputation has been severely tarnished by his relationship with Epstein – and his friendship with Epstein’s ex-partner Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted in December of her role in aiding Epstein’s abuse.
Here’s what you need to know about the case and what will follow.
What does Giuffre claim?
Giuffre says the attacks took place in London, New York and the US Virgin Islands, that Andrew knew she was a minor at the time, and that Epstein was trading with her.
In allegations made before her lawsuit, Giuffre claimed that Epstein brought her to London in 2001, where she was introduced to Prince Andrew and went to a nightclub with Epstein, his then girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell and the prince.
In an interview with the BBC broadcast in 2019, Giuffre said she was taken to the Tramp nightclub, where, according to Giuffre, Andrew asked her to dance and “sweat all over me.”
In the same interview, he claimed that he could not sweat due to a rare health condition and that the night he allegedly had sex with Giuffr, he actually took his daughter to a party at the Pizza Express restaurant in Woking, south-west of London.
Giuffre’s lawyers asked Andrew in court to provide documents proving both of these allegations. But Andrew’s team replied that they could not do so because they had no medical evidence to prevent them from sweating and could not identify anyone they met at the pizzeria.
How are things going in litigation?
The settlement was sealed on January 3; shows that Epstein paid Giuffre $ 500,000 to drop the case without any admission of liability or fault, and that Giuffre agreed to “forgive, release, release, satisfy and forever release” the parties and “any other person or entity that could be involved as a potential defendant. “He does not explicitly name Andrew or any other.
Andrew lost this effort on Wednesday; Kaplan ruled that “it cannot be said that the 2009 agreement clearly and unequivocally demonstrates that the parties intended the instrument ‘directly’, ‘primarily’ or ‘substantially’ in favor of Prince Andrew.”
Andrew now has until July 14 to answer questions about the case under oath, following Judge Lewis A. Kaplan’s decision last year. A planning order signed by a judge in New York means that if Giuffre’s lawyers want to question Andrew, they must do so out of court and return the interview by that date.
Wednesday’s ruling gives Andrew limited options.
He could still try to negotiate a settlement with Giuffr so that the case would not go to court. He repeatedly and categorically denied her accusations.
He could also choose to face a lawsuit that would open him up to a greater scrutiny of his alleged past behavior.
Another option is not to go further and refuse to submit to the jurisdiction of the court. However, that would open him up to a potentially costly judgment by default.
What is Andrew’s legal defense?
Andrew denied the allegations against him, and in 2019 he told the BBC: “It didn’t happen.”
Andrew’s lawyers also tried to postpone the story, arguing in an October lawsuit that Giuffre’s allegations were motivated by money. CNN contacted Giuffre’s lawyers regarding the new claims; in her original case submissions, her lawyers said that Andrew Giuffre had caused “emotional hardships” that were “severe and lasting.”
“Giuffre has launched this unfounded lawsuit against Prince Andrew to get another pay at his expense,” Andrew’s lawyers wrote in documents filed on October 29 – the clearest sign yet that they plan to go on the offensive to save the Queen’s third-child reputation.
The documents admit that Giuffre “may be a victim of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein … and nothing can excuse or fully capture the resistance and seriousness of Epstein’s monstrous behavior toward Giuffre, if he does.”
But the newspaper also tries to portray Giuffre as controlled money and accuse her of “intentionally recruiting and trafficking young girls for sexual abuse.”
He claims that Giuffre “was trained and in fact recruited other young women to Epstein’s sex trafficking circle” and has since “milked as much publicity as possible”, a dramatic escalation of the case that indicated a disgusting round. legal battles before us.
Giuffre’s lawyer, David Boies, did not respond at the time to CNN’s request to comment on the allegations in the court documents submitted by Andrew’s lawyers.
“Most people could only dream of getting the money Giuffre has secured over the years,” Andrew’s lawyers said in an October 29 document. “This is a compelling motive for Giuffre to continue filing frivolous lawsuits against individuals like Prince Andrew.”
Prince Andrew’s lawyers declined to comment after being contacted by CNN.
Will Andrew have to face the questions himself?
Andrew had previously been accused of not cooperating in attempts to interrogate him in an investigation into alleged sex trafficking with Epstein and Maxwell.
A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the southern district of New York declined to comment.
As Giuffre’s trial continues, he will probably have to set a deadline in mid-July to answer the sworn questions.
Until then, however, he will not appear in court and is unlikely to talk to the media about the case.
What does this mean for members of the royal family?
British tabloids often refer to the Duke as the Queen’s favorite child, so his long association with Epstein and Giuffre’s accusations against him signals a fall from grace.
While the monarch and other senior members of the royal family have so far avoided damaging their own reputation as a result of the Giuffre case, the prospect of Andrew being forced to answer questions under oath will be unwelcome to the wider institution.
CNN’s Lauren Said-Moorhouse contributed to this report.