The judgment of Prince Andrew – Global Legal Chronicle

Achild born into a royal family cannot be unborn from it, merely hidden away inthe hope that people forget about him. That has been the sentiment expressed byleader writers across much of Britains print media in relation to PrinceAndrew, the second son of the Queen and Prince Philip.

Byvirtue of his birth, he has lived a life of enormous privilege, far removedfrom the struggles of everyday folk. And, it would appear, very far removedfrom understanding the suffering of ordinary people. That was the universalconclusion following his disastrous interview with Emily Maitlis on BBCNewsnight in which he managed to combine overbearing self-importance with sanctimoniousself-pity.

Andrewinvited sympathy from viewers for the adverse publicity that has surrounded hisprotracted friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein but expressednone for Epsteins many victims. His lack of regret over associating with aconvicted sex offender was lamentable, but his lack of empathy for the victimswas truly shocking.

Tosuggest that Andrews judgment in agreeing to a BBC interview was flawed wouldbe an understatement. It was catastrophic. Encouraged by his former wife Sarah Fergusonand, according to media reports, contrary to the advice of his former PRadviser Jason Stein, Andrew had actively pushed for the interview to takeplace. In presenting a catalogue of questionable claims, half-truths and obviousfalsehoods, he manifestly failed to convince the British public with hisperformance: in a survey of 1,600 adults carried out by YouGov for The Times,just 6 per cent of people thought he was telling the truth.

The reaction has been swift and severe. Corporate sponsors of the Prince Andrew Charitable Trust and the Pitch@Palace initiative have been making a rapid exit. Nearly half of the 35 worldwide sponsors of Pitch@Palace have already pulled the plug on their support and funding. These include: KPMG, Aon, Standard Chartered, Gravity Road, Bond University, RMIT, University of Wollongong, Murdoch University and Fondation Rideau Hall. More, such as AstraZeneca and Barclays, will inevitably follow.

Recognitionfrom Buckingham Palace that the Prince Andrew brand is now toxic, perhapsterminally, came with the announcement that he will undertake no public dutiesand receive no public money from the government-issued sovereign grant for theforeseeable future. His withdrawal from public life means that 189 charitieswhich have his backing will no longer receive his patronage. The decision was nominallypresented as Andrews, but the Queen and his elder brother, Prince Charles,forced his hand. The implication was clear: he had become a liability. In whatamounted to a resignation statement, Andrew added that he was willing tohelp any appropriate law enforcement agency with their investigations, ifrequired.

Attentionnow shifts to the US legal system as Andrew prepares to give formal evidence toa US criminal investigation into Epstein. Having been arrested in July 2019 onfederal charges relating to the sex trafficking of minors, Epstein died in aNew York jail cell the following month. In 2008, he had pleaded guilty and wasconvicted by a Florida court of procuring an underage girl for prostitution andof soliciting a prostitute. Epstein was convicted of only two crimes thanks toa plea bargain: federal officials had identified 36 girls, some aged 14, whomEpstein had sexually abused. He served 13 months in jail.

Epsteinsdeath denied the women whom he raped and sexually abused at his residences inNew York, Paris, Florida, New Mexico and the US Virgin Islands, the opportunityto receive justice in the US criminal courts. Lawyers acting for the victimsare now actively pursuing a different route through the civil courts.

Andrewspart in the Epstein story goes back to their first meeting in 1999, when theywere reportedly introduced through his friendship with Ghislaine Maxwell, thedaughter of newspaper tycoon Robert Maxwell. Soon afterwards, Andrewentertained Epstein at Balmoral and they continued to see each other severaltimes a year. In 2000, Andrew and Ghislaine were seen with Epstein at DonaldTrumps Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach and again at Winsor Castle to markAndrews 40th birthday.

Eventsof the following year are critical. Virginia Roberts, who was then 17, claimsto have had sex with Andrew three times, including one orgy, with the firstencounter allegedly taking place in Ms Maxwells London home. A photograph ofAndrew with his arm around Roberts waist at Maxwells home has been widelypublished. Roberts also claims to have had sex with Andrew on two furtheroccasions: at Epsteins New York home and at an orgy on his private island inthe Caribbean.

Shouldhe be required at some point to give evidence on oath in a US courtroom, Andrewwill find the questioning of someone like David Boies, who is representingRoberts, to be unlike anything he has ever experienced. A relatively straighforwardinterview with a thorough, but respectful BBC journalist is as nothing comparedto hours of skilled cross-examination from a top-drawer courtroom litigator. WhenI interviewed Boies in New York, his forensic skill and razor-sharp mind were self-evident.

Andrewis completely unused to being held accountable for anything: he has never hadhis integrity or honesty challenged in a public forum. To be cross-examined bysomeone of Boies calibre is therefore likely to be an extremely unpleasantordeal and one for which he will be woefully unprepared. Not only that, buthis modest intellectual ability, as underscored by the BBC interview, will renderhim incapable of adequately dealing with robust and relentless questioning. Inshort, he could easily be crushed.

Despitetheir divorce in 1996, Andrew and Sarah have maintained a close relationshipand the couple have often been photographed with their two daughters, Beatriceand Eugenie. In this context, I have some personal experience. My late father,George Carman QC, advised Sarah and Andrew in the late 1990s, not long beforehe first met Epstein.

Sarahasked my father to meet her at a friends house in Walton Street, Chelsea. Whenher Coutts overdraft had reached telephone-number proportions, the bank was applyinggreater pressure for it to be reduced significantly. Fergie, as Sarah wascommonly known, thought that the Queen might help: she wanted her Majestysassistance, but was afraid to put the question herself. Her solution was to askif my father would go to Balmoral to argue her case in person to the Queen andPrince Philip. My father, who had previously advised Fergie and Princess Dianaon separate defamation matters involving British newspapers, could not believethat she was serious. She must be off her head, he said incredulously.

At Fergies request, he also spoke to a nervous Andrew, who gave qualified support to the idea since he was in no position to help himself. Andrew was very keen to do everything he could to help his former wife, but was worried about how his parents would react to the suggestion of George Carman appearing in front of them, asking them to help reduce their former daughter-in-laws enormous overdraft. On this occasion, his anxiety was well-placed. When Andrew made an approach for my father to have a private audience with the Queen to plead for money in order to bail out Fergie, the response was negative. She was not amused.

By comparison with Epstein, this episode is trivial. But it does illustrate one thing: Prince Andrews judgment is deeply flawed. The media and the public who have sat in judgment on Andrew in recent months have inevitably reached the same conclusion. We wait to see whether a US court may ultimately do the same and with what consequences.

Written by:

Dominic Carman, journalist, writer and legal commentator.www.dominiccarman.com

More here:

The judgment of Prince Andrew - Global Legal Chronicle