The net is closing on Andrew - but he may still wriggle out

Reports that seven police forces are now considering investigations into Andrew are certainly evidence that attempts to shelter the former prince from the legal repercussions of his alleged activities are over, and neither the King nor anybody else will be coming to his defence.

However, the fact that these inquiries will likely focus on his alleged misconduct in public office - rather than accusations of sexual impropriety - shows just how limited the actual criminal case against Andrew currently is, and why it is unlikely that he will ever stand trial in Britain or the United States.

As a criminal defence solicitor specialising in sexual offences, I have advised clients accused of all types of serious sexual crime, including rape, sexual assault, sexual offences against children, and organised sexual abuse.

In my experience, the threshold for bringing a prosecution against a major public figure is high, relying on a difficult combination of direct, forensic, digital, and testimonial evidence to prosecute effectively. It is rare that a prosecution succeeds without the testimony of alleged victims, and even rarer if a criminal act took place some years ago.

Whilst the allegations against Andrew are certainly shocking, the tragic death of Virginia Giuffre and absence of any other formal, plausible complaint by any of his alleged victims to date suggests to me that a criminal trial is not on the horizon - or at least not on the grounds of a role in Epstein’s sex trafficking operation.

This is not to say that an investigation into Andrew’s alleged sexual misconduct will not take place, or that additional evidence cannot come to light.

Serious inquiries must be made into cogent claims that Andrew entertained women, allegedly victimised by Epstein, in Britain and abroad - including allegations that women were smuggled into Windsor and other royal residences at his request.

Questions must also be asked as to his knowledge of Epstein’s infamous ‘Lolita Express’, and the nature of almost 90 specific flights that landed and departed from the U.K.

If sufficient involvement in any of these actions was somehow proven, then Andrew could conceivably stand trial for any number of sexual offences, ranging from rape and sexual assault to trafficking and exploitation.

But to do so would be extremely difficult, and made more so by the fact that, despite his public defenestration, there likely remains very little appetite among officials for the King’s brother to be branded a sex offender.

If Andrew is prosecuted, then it is my view that it will be based on his alleged misconduct in public office - or similar charges, tied to claims of financial ties between him and Epstein.

Other action could possibly be brought in the United States, though whether the English courts would authorise an extradition when a trial would take place amidst such intense public scrutiny seems unlikely.

It may not be inconceivable that a royal palace has served as a brothel, and that a man as flawed as Andrew could find himself complicit in Epstein’s sex crimes - but proving as much is a more difficult task entirely.

Barring any major new revelations, for example if further disclosures are made by Maxwell or any alleged victims of the ‘Lolita Express’,  I believe that the extent of Andrew’s punishment will be obscurity -  not a custodial sentence for a sex related crime.

____________________

Marcus Johnstone is Managing Director of PCD Solicitors and a criminal defence lawyer specialising in sexual offences.

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk