But Amber Melville-Brown, a legal expert, said Andrews probably spent most of her time meeting with lawyers rather than socializing. The Duke of York has lost his military titles and royal patronage, and his «full-time job» likely involves defending himself against sexual assault allegations as a private citizen, a legal expert told Insider. Murphy argued that the Duke`s affirmative defence of «consent» — while technically legal under an assault and assault law — «is inappropriate. If you know, and the allegations are, it was a systematic human trafficking industry, an illegal business that was extraordinarily well established and just plain grotesque about how they recruited and selected vulnerable girls. Andrew`s lawyers argued that in a case where a 17-year-old alleges abuse, the victim must prove a lack of consent through an «implied threat,» which in Giuffre`s case would depend on unavailable third-party testimony. The prince says only four people witnessed the alleged abuse — Maxwell (who did not testify in his own trial last month), Epstein (who died in prison in 2019 awaiting trial), Andrew himself and Giuffre. Now, Andrew`s ability to build a defense relies on a few thin legal formalities that probably won`t convince anyone that he never had sex with Giuffre. But one of the following arguments might put him off: Giuffre claims she had sex with the prince when she was 17 and was underage under U.S. law.
She says they were presented by the late disgraced American financier Jeffrey Epstein, who committed suicide in prison while awaiting trial for sex crimes, and convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell. Sex abuse attorneys and former sex crimes prosecutors say both statements are surprisingly deaf, both in terms of public relations and when these defense allegations are presented before a New York jury. The prince actually maintains that Giuffre, a victim of the Epstein-Maxwell plot to trade minors, agreed to have sex while he was a victim of trafficking and was not yet of legal age. The court of public opinion is another story. It is likely that some people will interpret this comparison as an admission of guilt. The reasoning is: who would pay £12 million if they did not? The reality is that Prince Andrew and his legal team may have decided that any amount he was willing to pay was a reasonable price to pay to avoid further humiliation resulting from his testimony, which was expected in early March, and all the written documents he should have submitted. Giuffre`s response to the complaint denied all allegations and called into question the validity of his claim on jurisdictional grounds. He also called for a jury trial, although Giuffre has already asked for it, it`s a rather meaningless request.
To many experts, this seemed largely low-key, except for two of the 11 entries called Affirmative Defense. Prince reportedly the youngest high-profile defendant – with a strategy condemned by US legal experts Now that Andrew`s stories are looking increasingly ridiculous, his lawyers are relying on legal formalities to release him if the case continues. In a virtual hearing on Jan. 4, federal Judge Lewis Kaplan of Andrew`s attorneys didn`t seem convinced that a $500,000 settlement between Epstein and Giuffre in 2009 also protected the royal family from prosecution. Kaplan is expected to decide soon whether the case can go to court. The prospect of a jury trial follows Wednesday`s decision by the prince`s lawyer to file legal documents firmly resisting allegations of sexual abuse made against him by his accuser, Virginia Giuffre. In the newspapers, Andrew`s legal team denied the allegations and then tried to blame Giuffre for being partially responsible for his abuse. The move was criticized by legal experts as «cruel» and «inappropriate.» Prince Andrew`s civil case does not carry a risk of imprisonment. But in a city obsessed with money, power and prestige, a famous prince in the dock who suffers further losses from everyone after being forced to step down from royal duties could be a celebration of the end of the summer of controversial jurisdiction for a city desperate for pandemic distraction. Legal experts have also expressed opinions that the prince`s legal strategy does not rule out a settlement with a statement of responsibility, as Boies indicated that this would be part of his client`s conditions. But Giuffre`s legal team has yet to prove that the alleged touching was offensive and not consensual. Victims` lawyers agreed that the prince was trying to blame the victim.
«Prince Andrew has denied ever having met Ms Giuffre and has denied ever having had sexual contact. Now, in his response to the court, he still denies it, but says incredibly, if the acts took place, they were consensual,» said Eric Baum of Eisenberg & Baum. From a legal perspective, innocence and guilt are criminal concepts and are not really applicable in the civil law context. In civil proceedings such as this, the parties try to prove the defendant`s liability. The agreement contains a clause stating that nothing in it should be construed as an admission or admission of liability. The legal situation is therefore that he is neither responsible for Giuffre`s claims. It is not yet clear whether Andrew`s case will be heard by a jury or a single judge. Whatever the outcome, any lawsuit is sure to generate more damaging publicity for the British royal family and the beleaguered prince, eighth in line to the throne. A legal expert believes Prince Andrew should have settled immediately to avoid the embarrassment of a future discovery process if the case came to court.
Giuffre`s lawyers reportedly have evidence from an anonymous woman who remembers being asked to prepare for Andrew at Epstein`s mansion on the Upper East Side — details that would come out in an eventual discovery process. Age of consent: Andrew`s lawyers also argue that because Giuffre was 17 at the time of the alleged abuse — the legal age of consent in New York — would have a hard time proving she was «forced» to have sex. «To say that she acted of her own free will and allowed herself to be raped by a man with so much more power is. A dangerous thing. It`s going to cause huge negative publicity for the prince, as it should, and if you ask a jury to charge a child, they`ll come back to you with revenge,» Murphy added. The question of how a 17-year-old could consent to systematic sex trafficking is puzzling for Murphy, who points out that under sex trafficking laws, consent is illegal on public policy grounds. «A human being cannot consent to human trafficking, any more than he can consent to slavery,» she said. As for his position in the monarchy, the timing suggests that the Queen waited to see if Andrew would be protected by the Epstein agreement before stripping him of his titles.