Prince Andrew’s lawyer attempts to dismiss lawsuit accusing the royal of sexually abusing teen girl

Prince Andrew’s lawyers have told a judge that his accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre “needs to lock herself into a story” while arguing that her civil case against the royal should be dismissed.

Britain's Prince Andrew, Duke of York, speaks during a television interview outside the Royal Chapel of All Saints in Windsor two days after the death of his father Britain's Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Picture: Steve Parsons / AFP.

Prince Andrew’s lawyer has argued that a civil lawsuit against his client should be dismissed because the British royal is protected by a 2009 settlement agreement between the accuser and Jeffrey Epstein – but the judge is still yet to rule on the matter.

Virginia Roberts Giuffre, 38, has filed a civil lawsuit against Prince Andrew for allegedly sexually assaulting her in when she was a teenager in three locations: Epstein’s New York mansion and the late paedophile’s private island in the US Virgin Islands, as well as the London home of recently convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell.

Prince Andrew – who has not been charged with criminal offences – has denied the allegations. His legal team has called the lawsuit “baseless” and accused Ms Roberts Giuffre of seeking “another payday at (the prince’s) expense”.

On Tuesday, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan heard arguments in New York from both the royal and Ms Roberts Giuffre’s lawyers on whether to dismiss the case in which she is seeking unspecified damages for infliction of emotional distress and battery. He did not immediately rule on the matter, instead saying he would make a decision “pretty soon”.

The hearing came one day after the scheduled public release of a US$500,000 settlement agreement between convicted sex trafficker Epstein and Ms Roberts Giuffre in 2009 that lawyers for Andrew argued absolves him of liability.

The 12-page agreement between Ms Roberts Giuffre and Epstein reveals she accepted half a million dollars in order to settle all claims against him and, in doing so, agreed to release Epstein and “any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant (‘Other Potential Defendants’) from all, and all manner of, action and actions of Virginia Roberts, including State or Federal, cause and causes of action (common law or statutory), suits … and demands whatsoever in law or inequity for compensatory or punitive damages”.

The Duke of York’s lawyer Andrew Brettler argued that the prince was “someone who could have been named as a defendant but was not” because Ms Roberts Giuffre had identified him as one of her alleged abusers by the time she entered into the settlement agreement, and had specifically referred to “royalty” in her 2009 lawsuit against Epstein.

“It’s unquestionable Prince Andrew could have been sued in the 2009 Florida action,” Mr Brettler said on Tuesday.

“He was not. Therefore he was a ‘potential defendant’ and a releasee under 2009 settlement by its unambiguous terms.”

Britain's Prince Andrew, Duke of York, speaks during a television interview outside the Royal Chapel of All Saints in Windsor two days after the death of his father Britain's Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Picture: Steve Parsons / AFP.

The royal’s case is among the most prominent litigation related to Epstein’s sex crimes. Mr Brettler told the judge that Epstein had likely included “potential defendants” in the agreement because he didn’t want to ever be “dragged back into a lawsuit” with Ms Roberts Giuffre if she was to later sue any of his associates – which included “royals and business people”.

“Clearly Giuffre intended to release a broad category of individuals,” Mr Brettler said.

However, Judge Kaplan said he could not “find any meaning” to the term “potential defendant”, facetiously suggesting it was so broad it could also discharge “the Sultan of Brunei”.

Mr Brettler responded that it would also apply in that case if there were such allegations against him.

But Judge Kaplan questioned his assertion. “If what the intention of the parties had been was to release any other person or entity who was in any way involved in any of the sexual activities with Mr Epstein or others, it would have been easy to say it,” he stated.

Ms Roberts Giuffre’s legal team argued that the settlement is only enforceable in Florida, where it was signed, and only protects Epstein’s sex trafficking co-conspirators, which the Duke of York has strenuously denied he was.

Ms Roberts Giuffre’s attorney David Boies also tried to persuade the judge that the “potential defendant” term did not apply to the Duke of York because he was not accused of being a sex trafficker.

“There is no allegation that Prince Andrew was the person transporting,” he said.

“There is no allegation that Prince Andrew fell into the category of people who were doing the trafficking.

“(The allegations are that) he was somebody to whom the girls were trafficked.”

Judge Kaplan, then pointed Mr Boies towards a section of the 12-page agreement which specified that Epstein and Ms Roberts Giuffre agreed “that the terms of this Settlement Agreement are not intended to be used by any other person”. What that means, he said, is that the only person who could enforce Prince Andrew or another person’s release in the case “would be Epstein”.

Epstein, a convicted pedophile, died by suicide in a Manhattan jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex abuse charges.

“The defendant is ‘any other person’. [Prince Andrew] is within the category of persons who are not entitled to use the terms of the settlement,” Judge Kaplan said.

‘IT WAS … INVOLUNTARY SEXUAL INTERCOURSE’

During Tuesday’s hearing, Mr Brettler suggested that Ms Roberts Giuffre has provided few details about the alleged abuse and said she “needs to lock herself into a story now”.

“Not some time in the future after she conducts discovery and figures out where the chips may fall,” he said.

“She needs to allege today when he supposedly abused her.

“I’d like even a date, a month, we would settle for a year and all we have now is that she was supposedly 17 years old, it could have spanned over two calendar years.

“Ms Giuffre doesn’t articulate what supposedly happened to her at the hands of Prince Andrew.”

Mr Brettler said she was over the age of consent in the state of New York and so needed to allege she was forced to have sex with the Duke of York.

Judge Kaplan pointed out that there is no legal requirement for Ms Roberts Giuffre to provide any additional details at this stage.

“With respect … that’s not a dog that’s going to hunt here”, Judge Kaplan said.

“It was sexual intercourse. Involuntary sexual intercourse. There isn’t any doubt about what that means, at least not since someone else was in the White House.”

If the case proceeds to trial, the prince and his legal team would have access to that information during the discovery phase.

The developments come at a troublesome time for the Duke of York after Ghislaine Maxwell, his former close friend, was last week convicted in New York of recruiting and trafficking underage girls for Epstein. She now faces up to 60 years in jail when she is sentenced at a later date. During her three week trial, Prince Andrew’s name was mentioned as one of several prominent figures to fly on Epstein’s private jet.

The prince has previously denied any memory of meeting Ms Roberts Giuffre and suggested a photograph showing him with his arm around her bare midriff with Maxwell smiling in the background was doctored.

The 61-year-old royal has remained ensconced with the queen – his 95-year-old mother – since his attempts at public exoneration through a BBC interview in 2019 backfired.

Prince Andrew and Virginia Roberts at Ghislaine Maxwell's townhouse in London, Britain on March 13, 2001 Picture: Florida Southern District Court/Supplied.

Prince Andrew’s lawyers have sought to undermine Ms Roberts Giuffre’s credibility in a bid to have 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.

Her lawyers reportedly claimed earlier that they have up to six witnesses linking Prince Andrew to his accuser.