We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. More info

The Sunday Express-commissioned survey, conducted in the US and UK, found almost nine out of 10 people in Britain ‑ 88.31 percent ‑ want him to submit to questioning in America over accusations of rape and sexual assault.

The result in the US poll, which asked: “Do you think Prince Andrew should return to the US to answer the sex claims made against him?”, was equally overwhelming, with 79.72 percent saying he should.

The allegations against Andrew have damaged the image of the Royal Family, said 76.92 percent of Britons, while 68.63 percent of Americans agreed.

The twin polls were run by OnePulse, the real-time opinion platform. Each asked the same set of questions.

Quizzed whether they thought “Prince Andrew will ever return to life as a working member of the Royal Family”, 83.22 percent said that they believed he would not, while 72.13 percent of Americans said the Prince wouldn’t make a comeback.

The results will come as a devastating blow to Andrew. A preliminary court hearing is already scheduled for next month and one prominent attorney has warned that the Prince has “no good option” left.

On September 13, Manhattan Federal Court judge Lewis Kaplan will decide whether to serve the Queen’s 61-year-old son with a lawsuit if he or his legal team have not yet responded to the claims.

The Duke cannot be compelled to answer the civil case filed last week by Virginia Giuffre, an alleged “sex slave” of Andrew’s friend, the late paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.

She alleges she was sexually abused by the Prince at least three times when she was aged 17.

But if he fails to respond within 21 days, he risks forfeiting the case, with an automatic court finding against him and a claim for damages that some legal experts believe could run into tens of millions of dollars.

Our poll today reveals an overwhelming majority of Americans believe, just like people in Britain, that Andrew should answer Ms Giuffre whose lawsuit accuses him of sexual battery, sexual abuse and “rape in the first degree”.

The Prince, who is with the Queen in Balmoral, where he is reportedly having crisis talks with his brother Prince Charles, now faces a double dilemma over the scandal.

If he were to swear an affidavit or give testimony in the civil case brought by Ms Giuffre, anything he might say could be used in future criminal cases being built by the FBI, which also wants to question him over his friendship with Epstein. 

This was confirmed by Melissa Murray, a professor of law at New York University, who said: “Any evidence that emerges in a civil case can be used to inform future criminal charges.”

Prof Murray added that the Prince could make an offer to settle the case but there is no guarantee such an offer would be accepted and could also backfire on him. “Settling could be seen as saying that there was some truth to it.”

Her view is supported by prominent New York civil defence attorney Albert D’Aquino, who starkly declared: “There’s no good option. I don’t think he will submit to the court’s authority to order him to give a deposition, or to answer questions on which he wishes to demur. He runs too much risk of self-incrimination, which could then spawn a criminal action against him.”

Texas-based women’s rights attorney Michelle Tuegel warned that Andrew could also be hit with a contempt charge by the judge, if he fails to respond to Ms Giuffre’s claims ‑ which he has always strenuously denied.

That would not mean the duke could be extradited from Britain “but he could be subject to arrest if a judge charges him and he then tries to travel to the US,” said Ms Tuegel.

She added: “I expect he is going to continue to try to do what he has already done, which is to avoid, not respond and not co-operate. But that could come with some very negative consequences for him in the civil system.” 

The Duke has reportedly instructed London criminal defence solicitor Gary Bloxsome to help plot his next move. 

Mr Bloxsome has defended British troops against war crimes allegations as well as footballers in assault cases.

David Boies, the attorney representing Ms Giuffre ‑ known by her maiden name Roberts when the alleged incidents took place ‑ said last week: “He can ignore me and he can ignore Virginia, which is what he’s been doing for the last five years. But he can’t ignore the judicial process. This is now a matter for the courts to decide.”

Allegations could hardly be worse… it’s a PR nightmare

Comment by Michael Cole

 Always liked Prince Andrew. Friendly, approachable, smiling ‑ in marked contrast to the Queen’s other children who were prickly, regarding the media as “the enemy”.

He was completely different. They liked skiing and horses ‑ he liked golf and sitting in the sun.

He didn’t even look like them, keeping his hair and piling on the pounds, becoming “The Duke of Pork”, while they stayed fairly slim and spare.

Prince Andrew served with distinction as a helicopter pilot with theTask Force in the Falkland War 39 years ago.The photo on his return to Portsmouth, a red rose clamped between his ample teeth, captured the joy of youth and sheer delight at pulling off an unlikely victory in the South Atlantic.

He was widely admired by men and women alike and was said to be the Queen’s favourite child.

On the day of his engagement to Sarah Ferguson in March 1986, ITN’s Anthony Carthew and I interviewed the couple at Buckingham Palace.

For its candour, good humour and telling insights, the interview was judged to be the most revealing royal interview ever.

Their kiss on the Buckingham Palace balcony after the wedding at Westminster Abbey was the real thing. I covered their early foreign tours.The Duke and Duchess of York, as they had become, had the world at their feet, popular, glamorous and able to reach out to ordinary people in a way other royals could not or would not. 

That’s why I was sorry to see them divorce 10 years later and even sadder to see the Prince become entangled in a legal cat’s cradle that will not be easy to escape; certainly not with his reputation or dignity intact.

The Duchess of York ‑ always Sarah to her ex-husband and never “Fergie”‑ was brought down by her close relationships with two American money men, Johnny Bryan and Steve Wyatt. It took one New York financier, Jeffrey Epstein, to bring down Prince Andrew.

His ill-advised friendship with the late paedophile has effectively cancelled his role as a working member of the Royal Family, with the increasing legal fallout now ensuring no way back to the privileged life he once knew.

For the Queen’s second son to be unable to travel to America, our most important ally, without the certainty of being served with a subpoena, to appear as a witness in the criminal prosecution of his erstwhile friend Ghislaine Maxwell, or to be slapped with a writ as the respondent in a civil case brought by Virginia Giuffre, is nothing short of disastrous.

The allegations levelled by Ms Giuffre, formerly Virginia Roberts, could not be more serious or lurid: that the Prince sexually assaulted her when she was a teenager, when she was trafficked by Epstein to have sex with Andrew when she was 17 and a minor under US law.

But that’s the thing Virginia Roberts it’s US law. It may be mighty but its writ does not run in the realms of Prince Andrew’s mother, the Queen.

In Britain, law is administered and justice delivered in the name of the Queen, in Her Majesty’s courts, by Her Majesty’s judges, most of whom are Queen’s Counsel.

The allegations against the Prince could hardly be worse and it is a PR nightmare for Buckingham Palace, threatening to overshadow the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations next year. 

It’s hugely damaging to the Prince personally but, it must not be forgotten, he has never been charged with any crime and has always denied any wrongdoing and even meeting the then Miss Roberts.

With such a categorical denial by a Prince of the royal blood, his London lawyers have played a dead bat to the allegations coming from across the Atlantic ‑ “stonewalling”, say the lawyers of Ms Giuffre, now a 38-year-old mother-of-three living in Australia.

That’s certainly the best legal response, however bad the PR fallout may be. It’s a civil case, not a criminal one.

The Prince is not the accused and won’t be a legal respondent unless he responds to the writ. If he feels no compunction to do so he cannot be forced.

This is about money, not jail time. Ms Giuffre is seeking unspecified damages. But even if the case goes to court in New York, and a jury finds for the plaintiff and awards her many thousands of dollars, it is highly doubtful any such judgment could be enforced in Britain; not if Andrew had taken no part in the trial and not therefore defended himself against the allegations.

In short, if Prince Andrew never enters any country where the US has jurisdiction, he is safe. On top of all other considerations, the age of sexual consent in Britain is 16, not 17 as it is in New York, although other US states vary.

I am glad to see Andrew has engaged a PR firm to handle the growing media storm. I only hope he heeds good advice.

Even more worrying than the Giuffre civil case, the Prince should be concerned about the criminal prosecution of Maxwell, 59, who has been living in harsh conditions in an unpleasant remand prison in Brooklyn for more than a year on charges of procuring teenage girls for Epstein to sexually abuse.

She is due to be tried in November. But if she is offered a plea bargain ‑ less jail time in exchange for an admission of guilt and naming prominent men who were friends of Epstein and shared his sexual proclivities and practices ‑ there may be a number of famous men who will find themselves in greater legal peril than even the troubled Prince is right now.

Michael Cole is former BBC royal correspondent

Source: Read Full Article