Prince Andrew's lawyer: Virginia Giuffre’s sexual assault claim is 'baseless'

13 September 2021, 18:24 | Updated: 14 September 2021, 09:03

Prince Andrew has denied all sexual assault allegations levelled against him by Virginia Giuffre
Prince Andrew has denied all sexual assault allegations levelled against him by Virginia Giuffre. Picture: Alamy
Nick Hardinges

By Nick Hardinges

Prince Andrew's lawyers told a New York court that sexual assault allegations against him are 'baseless' and 'unviable' as they tried to have the civil case against him thrown out of court.

Listen to this article

Loading audio...

He is being sued by Virginia Giuffre who claims she was trafficked by the Duke's former friend and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Prince Andrew has always categorically denied any sexual contact or relationship with his accuser.

Lawyers for the Duke of York told the court in New York that Ms Giuffre has a prior agreement "releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability".

She claims she was trafficked by Andrew's former friend, and convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein, to have sex with the duke, when she was aged 17 and a minor under US law.

At a pre-trial hearing, Andrew B Brettler, for the duke, said Ms Giuffre has previously entered into a "settlement agreement" that would nullify her current lawsuit.

Cressida Dick on Prince Andrew allegations: no one is above the law

He told the US district court for the southern district of New York that Andrew's lawyers have "significant concerns about the propriety of this lawsuit".

Mr Brettler was apparently appointed at the last moment after Ms Giuffre's legal team accused Andrew's lawyers of having "stonewalled" their attempts to get them to engage with the case.

The attorney has carved out a successful career defending allegations arising from the #MeToo movement.

"We believe this is a baseless, unviable and potentially unlawful lawsuit that the plaintiff has filed against the duke," Mr Brettler said.

"There has been a settlement agreement that the plaintiff has entered into in a prior action that releases the duke and others from any and all potential liability."

Judge Lewis A Kaplan repeatedly sought to limit the scope of the hearing to whether or not the duke had been properly served notice of the case, and what action the court needs to take to ensure the legal papers reach him.

David Boies, representing Ms Giuffre, said that the complaint had been "delivered to the last known address of the defendant", he added that the documents had also been sent "by Royal Mail".

Mr Boies said: "We believe we have complied with the service requirement and we filed proof of service last Friday."

He said he expected Andrew to challenge the claim that notice of the case has been properly served on him.

Mr Brettler said that the duke's team contested "the validity of service to date", adding he has not been properly served under either UK or international law.

He said that it could be up to the High Court in London to decide whether the case can proceed.

The alleged settlement agreement cited by Mr Brettler is currently sealed under the order of a different judge, the court heard.

Mr Boies said it was "inconsistent" to be making discovery requests for documents when the case still hinges on whether or not the duke has been properly served notice of the proceedings, and whether the US courts have jurisdiction over the case.

He added that if the duke does choose to engage with proceedings and make a formal request for documents, Ms Giuffre's legal team would respond "very promptly".

Mr Brettler said that he believed the document "absolves our client from any and all liability", adding other defendants had avoided similar proceedings by relying on its existence.

Judge Kaplan listed the case for a further hearing in-person at 3pm UK time on October 17.

He recommended both sides discuss the service of the case ahead of the next hearing in order to get to the "substance" of the claim.

"I can see a lot of legal fees being spent and time being expended and delay, which ultimately may not be productive for anyone," he said.

Ms Giuffre is seeking unspecified damages, but there is speculation the sum could be in the millions of dollars.

The duke does not face the prospect of an extradition hearing as this only applies to criminal charges and not civil cases.

'Prince Andrew facing criminal trial will come down to Boris Johnson.'

In court documents filed on Friday, Ms Giuffre's lawyers stated there was a first attempt to serve the papers on the duke on August 26, when an agent went to Windsor Great Park.

They state that a Metropolitan Police officer, who was the head of security, told the agent officers were not able to accept service of any court process, or let anyone trying to serve legal papers on to the property.

The agent returned the next day and was told the court process could be left with the police officer at the main gate "and that this matter would then be forwarded on to the legal team".

Andrew has stepped back from public duties amid the fallout from his relationship with Epstein.

It came after a 2019 Newsnight interview which saw him attempt to draw a line under his relationship with Epstein, who died in prison two years ago, but it ended up being dubbed a "car crash".

During the programme he denied claims that he slept with Ms Giuffre on three separate occasions, saying: "I can absolutely categorically tell you it never happened.

"I have no recollection of ever meeting this lady, none whatsoever."

According to The Daily Mail, he was last seen arriving at the Queen's Scottish retreat of Balmoral Castle in August and was thought to have been accompanied by his ex-wife Sarah, Duchess of York.

Lawyers for Ms Giuffre filed the civil suit against the duke citing allegations of battery by sexual assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress.