‘A disaster’: Prince Andrew’s sex allegation settlement revealed

Lawyers for Prince Andrew’s Australian-based accuser have broken their silence on the multimillion-dollar settlement that ended the case.

Prince Andrew settled with his Australian-based accuser because a deposition in the United States “would have been a disaster”, according to lawyers for Virginia Guiffre.

In his first public comments over the multimillion settlement, lawyer David Boies said Prince Andrew “would have been taking a terrible criminal risk” by defending the civil claims brought by Ms Guiffre.

He added the Duke of York, who denies all allegations of wrongdoing and maintains his innocence, likely settled because the photo with Ms Guiffre in Ghislaine Maxwell’s apartment was likely strong enough for a conviction.

Prince Andrew denies having met Virginia Guiffre. Picture: Supplied

“But I also think that he recognised, and I think his lawyers recognised, that it would be a disaster for him to appear for a deposition. Remember, as you say I deposed Ghislaine Maxwell and she was indicted for perjury, as a result of that deposition,” Mr Boies told Piers Morgan Uncensored in New York.

Mr Boies, who spoke as the first anniversary of the settlement approached, said that Prince Andrew claiming he never met Ms Guiffre, while being photographed with her, would have made him lose credibility in court.

“And once the jury concludes that he’s not credible about having never met her, I think the jury probably concludes he’s not credible about claiming that he did not have sex with her,” he said.

He added the evidence against Prince Andrew was “very strong”, and that he wouldn’t be able to take the approach he took on the BBC before the court.

“If you lie to an interviewer, you may embarrass yourself, if you lie in a deposition, you go to jail,” he said.

David Boies with Virginia Guiffre outside a US court before Prince Andrew settled the civil suit. Picture: Getty Images

“This was never a case where I think he could have afforded to go to trial. This was a case where I think the evidence was too strong and it was going to be very difficult for him to give a deposition. It settled right on the eve of the time the court had ordered that deposition to be taken and I think it was a deposition that would have been extremely difficult for him,” he added.

“[The Newsnight interview] gave a lot of ammunition but it also said that this is a person who is not going to want to sit for a deposition. That was a relatively short interview and while there were some tough questions, it was generally a very respectful interview, this was going to be a deposition where he was going to have to sit for seven hours and he was going to have to answer any question that was relevant to the case.”