Image source, Virginia Roberts
Prince Andrew, Virginia Roberts (now Giuffre) and Ghislaine Maxwell in 2001
The Duke of York’s lawyers have argued in a US court that a civil sexual assault lawsuit should be dismissed.
Virginia Giuffre is suing him for allegedly sexually assaulting her 20 years ago, when she was a teenager.
A document made public on Monday showed convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein paid her $500,000 (£371,000) to end her claim against him – and agree not to sue any other “potential defendant”.
Prince Andrew has consistently denied the allegations.
While the settlement with Epstein does not mention the prince by name, his lawyers say the deal means she cannot sue him.
Her lawyers argue that the prince would not be referred to as a “potential defendant”.
The interpretation of the 2009 document, disclosed by a New York court, has formed a central plank of the argument in the civil case involving Prince Andrew.
Ms Giuffre alleges she was trafficked to the prince by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell – who was last week convicted of recruiting and trafficking young girls to be abused by the late financier.
Financier Epstein died in prison in 2019.
The settlement with Epstein states that Ms Giuffre, also referred to by her unmarried name Roberts, agreed to “release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge” Epstein and “any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant”.
The settlement’s wording says she discharges the potential defendants from any US legal action, including damages claims dating “from the beginning of the world”.
Andrew B Brettler, the lawyer for the Duke of York, told Judge Lewis A Kaplan during a virtual hearing on Tuesday that a potential defendant was “someone who was not named as a defendant but could have been”.
He said that a potential defendant would be someone Ms Giuffre knew that she had “claims against at the time that she filed the lawsuit” in 2009.
Judge Kaplan said “potential” was a phrase that neither he nor Mr Brettler could “find any meaning at all” in.
Mr Brettler told Judge Kaplan that Prince Andrew “could have been sued” but was not, and added that he wanted Ms Giuffre to “lock herself into a story now” and provide further and more precise details of her allegations.
Judge Kaplan responded to say that was not a requirement at this stage of the process and “just isn’t the law”.
Mr Brettler concluded by saying the case should “absolutely be dismissed”.
Image source, US Attorney’s Office SDNY
Epstein and Maxwell have been pictured at the Queen’s private Scottish estate, Balmoral
David Boies, acting for Ms Giuffre, told Tuesday’s hearing Prince Andrew would not be a “potential defendant” as referred to in the civil case documents released on Monday for two reasons.
“The only claim that is asserted that was made in Florida in the 2009 action that covered Prince Andrew was the third count which was to transport somebody for the purpose of illegal sexual activity,” he said.
“There is no allegation that Prince Andrew was the person transporting. There is no allegation that Prince Andrew fell into the category of people who were doing the trafficking.
“He was somebody to whom the girls were trafficked.”
Judge Kaplan said a decision would be reached over the impact of the 2009 agreement on the civil case “pretty soon”, but declined to provide a definitive date for the judgement.
Ms Giuffre’s legal team have previously said the terms of the Florida settlement are irrelevant to her case against the prince, and “outside the four corners” of her action against Prince Andrew.
In her 2009 claim against Epstein, lawyers for Ms Giuffre said she was lured into a world of sexual abuse at his Florida home when she was a teenager.
They added: “In addition to being continually exploited to satisfy defendant’s [Epstein] every sexual whim, [Ms Giuffre] was also required to be sexually exploited by defendant’s adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, academicians, businessmen and or other professional and personal acquaintances.”
That case never went to trial because on 17 November 2009, Epstein agreed to pay her $500,000 to stop it in its tracks. That deal had been confidential but has now been made public because of its potential importance to the Prince Andrew case.