Duke of York ‘demands jury trial’ in civil sex case brought by Virginia Giuffre
An application to dismiss the case was previously denied by Judge Lewis A Kaplan.
The Duke of York has demanded a trial by jury in the civil sex case brought against him by Virginia Giuffre.
Ms Giuffre, also known as Virginia Roberts, alleges Andrew sexually assaulted her in three different locations between 2000 and 2002 while she was a teenager.
The duke submitted 11 reasons why the case should be dismissed, including that Ms Giuffre’s claims are “barred by the doctrine of consent” and by “her own wrongful conduct”.
In the court document which communicated his reasons for requesting a dismissal of the case, Andrew’s lawyers concluded: “Prince Andrew hereby demands a trial by jury on all causes of action asserted in the Complaint.”
David Boies, who is representing Ms Giuffre in her lawsuit against Andrew, said his client and legal team were anticipating “confronting” the royal about his “denials”.
In Ms Giuffre’s allegations, she accuses Andrew of sexually abusing her at the London home of disgraced British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, at paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein’s New York mansion and Epstein’s private island, Little St James.
Judge Lewis A Kaplan previously denied the duke’s application to dismiss the case.
The judge’s decision was a huge blow for Andrew, whose lawyer argued earlier this month the case should be thrown out as Ms Giuffre had waived her right to pursue the duke by signing a confidential settlement with disgraced financier Epstein.
Outlining his reasons for denying the motion, Judge Kaplan said the court was not able at this stage to consider the duke’s efforts to cast doubt on Ms Giuffre’s claims or whether he was covered by the settlement agreement, suggesting these were issues for a trial.
He said: “The 2009 agreement cannot be said to demonstrate, clearly and unambiguously, the parties intended the instrument ‘directly’, ‘primarily’, or ‘substantially’, to benefit Prince Andrew.”
The latest court document, which details all 11 reasons why the duke’s lawyers believed the case should be dismissed, reiterated the position on the 2009 agreement which was that Ms Giuffre “waived the claims now asserted in the complaint”.
Another factor the duke’s legal team asked the court to consider was the issue of consent.
The document reads: “Assuming, without admitting, that Giuffre has suffered any injury or damage alleged in the complaint, Giuffre’s claims are barred by the doctrine of consent.”
The duke also claimed the case should be “barred in whole or in part by her own wrongful conduct”.
Andrew’s lawyers also asserted that Ms Giuffre should not be able to proceed because her claim for damages is “too speculative to be recovered at law”.
This appears to show the duke claiming Ms Giuffre’s claims cannot be proved with reasonable certainty, which would leave jurors speculating as to the actual damages suffered.
Andrew’s lawyers also stated that Ms Giuffre’s claims “fail to state facts sufficient to constitute viable causes of action against Prince Andrew”.
The document also argues that the claims should be dismissed because Ms Giuffre is a permanent resident of Australia.
In a statement, Mr Boies said: “Prince Andrew’s answer continues his approach of denying any knowledge or information concerning the claims against him, and purporting to blame the victim of the abuse for somehow bringing it on herself.
“We look forward to confronting Prince Andrew with his denials and attempts to blame Ms Giuffre for her own abuse at his deposition and at trial.”
Criticism of the duke is mounting after the Queen stripped him of his remaining patronages and honorary military roles as the monarchy distanced itself from the duke ahead of potentially damaging developments in his lawsuit.
Andrew has strenuously denied all allegations.
