After Ghislaine Maxwell trial, spotlight to fall on Prince Andrew again
Though he largely escaped scrutiny in Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial, the Duke of York will not be able to dodge the spotlight in the new year when he is sued for alleged sexual assault.
Prince Andrew will have been deeply relieved when his accuser, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, was not called as a witness in Maxwell’s case. But next week she is due in a New York court for the next stage of her civil action against him – a lawsuit Andrew’s lawyers will do everything to get thrown out.
She claims the Queen’s son had sex with her on three occasions two decades ago when, aged 17, she had been sexually trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein, allegations Andrew vehemently denies.
Following Maxwell’s conviction on Wednesday, Giuffre said: “I hope that today is not the end but rather another step in justice being served. Maxwell did not act alone. Others must be held accountable. I have faith that they will be.”
Her absence in the witness box at Maxwell’s trial was perplexing to many. Her name was introduced countless times, her photograph was shown in court and she has been one of the most prominent accusers of Epstein and Maxwell. A deposition, given by Maxwell in a 2016 civil suit brought by Giuffre, formed the basis of two perjury charges against the British socialite, who denied all charges.
Giuffre was “available” if called upon to give evidence, the court heard. “Certainly, if she had been called, it would have seen Andrew centre-stage,” said Mark Stephens of the law firm Howard Kennedy.
Prosecutors gave no reason for their decision. But they may have feared it would complicate the case, especially if inconsistencies could be shown in accounts Giuffre has previously given over the years.
It could be, said Stephens, “that the reason the prosecution did not call Giuffre in the Ghislaine Maxwell case is that they risked an own goal if her credibility could be undermined, which would have given Maxwell a leg-up”.
Andrew’s lawyers have sought to target Giuffre’s credibility as they attempt to get the case against him dismissed in the civil proceedings she has brought. His legal team has painted her as an unreliable witness, querying certain dates and figures she has provided, and accusing her of seeking another
“payday”.
She has previously explained any discrepancies as innocent mistakes, and the result of recalling events from many years ago that had left her traumatised.
Andrew’s part in Maxwell’s courtroom drama was, therefore, reduced to mentions of him being a guest onboard Epstein’s “Lolita Express” private plane, with the pilots testifying to seeing nothing to suggest sexual activity on the part of those onboard during flights.
“It’s fair to say, I think, there must be some relief for Andrew that Giuffre did not appear, because it does distance him, somewhat, from the case,” said Stephens.
Nonetheless, he added, “it did not matter if Maxwell was found guilty, or innocent”, as the prince’s reputation was already tarnished, “indelibly so, as, frankly, the association with a convicted paedophile like Jeffrey Epstein is enough”.
“A guilty verdict on Ghislaine Maxwell, you might say, is almost priced in regarding Prince Andrew and reputational damage. People have already made up their minds about him and the verdict would have no impact on how they view him.”
Now Andrew must brace for the next round in the civil case against him, with the US district judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan scheduling a 4 January hearing when the royal’s lawyers are expected to argue for a dismissal of the case. If they are not successful, or if the case is not settled, it is expected to go for trial between September and December 2022.
Gloria Allred, a lawyer who represents 20 accusers of Epstein, said it was now a matter of having to wait and see if the civil sexual assault case in the US against the duke ever gets to trial.
She told BBC Breakfast that “to prove a criminal case, the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt” but “only a preponderance of evidence must be shown in order for there to be the possibility of the defendant being held liable” in a civil case.