Virginia Roberts Guiffre v Prince Andrew, Duke of York: how difficult is it to hold the rich and powerful to account?
On the 21st of September, counsel for Prince Andrew of Britain eventually accepted he had been served with a civil lawsuit brought about by Virginia Giuffre in New York, alleging sexual assault. This lawsuit comes after years of public scrutiny surrounding Prince Andrew’s ties to the convicted sex- offender, Jeffrey Epstein, who died in jail in 2019. Though it concerns two private individuals, this civil case is particularly significant as it demonstrates the possibility for an individual to hold a member of the British royal family accountable under the jurisdiction of the New York state.
The intense media coverage of Ms. Guiffre’s allegations against Prince Andrew has fuelled a major scandal. Virginia Roberts Giuffre first made the allegation against the Prince during a defamation case against Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell in April 2015, stating she was forced by Epstein to have sex with Prince Andrew when she was 17. Initially, the allegation was thrown out by the judge on formality grounds, stating that the allegation against the prince was irrelevant to the central defamation claim against Epstein and Maxwell. However, the claim was brought into the public spotlight, through the disclosure of the court documents in 2019. Backed by Buckingham Palace, Prince Andrew categorically denied Guiffre’s allegations during an interview with the BBC in November 2019. The prince’s lack of remorse towards his associations with Epstein only triggered a public backlash that led to his permanent withdrawal from public life. Recent reports outline that the Queen will privately fund the Prince’s legal team. Such a decision erodes any pre-existing separation between the monarchy and the scandal, representing a new low for the British royal family.
Prince Andrew may have most definitely lost in the court of public opinion, yet his case still remains to be determined by a court of law. The first hurdle was to find a piece of legislation to back Guiffre’s allegation that Prince Andrew sexually abused her in 2001. The New York State’s Child Victim’s Act 2019 was signed into law by former governor Andrew Cuomo, who has since been accused of sexual harassment himself. The act removed the time-barred element to claims, by giving victims one year to begin their legal action. The one-year limit was extended as a result of the pandemic, giving Guiffre a narrow window to commence her claim. As Guiffre alleges Prince Andrew committed the civil wrong in New York, her legal counsel was able to construct a claim from the Child Victim’s Act. Bringing the claim before the New York court is crucial to the legitimacy of the claim in law, given it is unlikely that Guiffre’s claim would be actionable in England due to the time-bar.
Relying on the basis that Prince Andrew is subject to the jurisdiction of the New York State, the second legal hurdle was to successfully serve Prince Andrew with papers detailing the allegations of sexual abuse. Article 6 of the Human Rights Act and the 6th amendment of the US constitution protect the defendant’s right to a fair trial, meaning the defendant must know the full extent of the allegations against them, so they can defend themselves. Prince Andrew’s legal team was accused of ‘stonewalling’ Guiffre’s lawyers, by repeatedly ignoring the serving court papers delivered to the prince’s door. Andrew Brettler argued on the Prince’s behalf that the papers were not served under the law. He sought to bring the matter under the jurisdiction of England and Wales, by citing the Hague Convention, which stipulates an American court can collaborate with a British court to serve a defendant with papers. However, it appears non-compliance with the court papers was merely a delaying tactic, with the judge concerned stating ‘there is a high degree of certainty he can be served sooner or later.”
Once the case proceeds to the trial stage, the third hurdle concerns the argument that Guiffre’s prior settlement with Epstein contained a provision where Guiffre agreed to not sue anyone else affiliated with Epstein. The US court will need to construe the true meaning of the settlement provision in order to decide whether Guiffre has breached the prior agreement, by bringing this case against Prince Andrew. Given it is a civil case in US tort law, the standard of proof is a balance of probabilities, being a lower requirement than the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard in criminal law. As the trial is yet to fully unfold, it is currently unclear as to whether Guiffre’s arguments will be regarded as sufficient in a court of law.
The procedural hurdles under the law act to keep liability under control. However, further developments analogous to the Child Victim’s Act 2019 would certainly be welcome. Given the fact that many victims of powerful abusers may be prevented from speaking out, the strict time limits imposed upon claims ought to be relaxed. If it is the law’s function to rectify injustice, it should provide accessible remedies that aim to compensate innocent individuals. Nevertheless, the sexual abuse allegations against Prince Andrew have significantly destabilised the foundations of the monarchy. By merging the ideas of royalty with the morally repulsive actions of sexual abuse, Guiffre’s case has the potential to undermine the traditional idea of the monarchy as a source of stability and moral authority in British society.
The rule of law underpins British constitutional values. Both those who command power and influence, as well as ordinary individuals, should be subjected to the full force of the law, for no one is above it. The US court will have extensive powers to examine Prince Andrew’s personal dealings, including private communications. As the trial unfolds, it remains to be seen whether Prince Andrew will be held to the standards expected of a private individual, just like the rest of us.
