Forum menu
OK.
He doesn't have to prove his innocence. He could choose to, though.
🤷♂️
If I ever face civil charges in the US, I’ll do my best to ensure I have police officers making it hard for papers to be served. They’ll be up for that, yes?
I'm sure your mother can provide you with properties to stay in with extensive grounds, walls, and a gatehouse, maybe a moat, to make it hard to serve the papers (or at least easier to claim they haven't been served).
If it’s ok to determine Andrew’s guilt in the public eyes based on one side of the story
We've only really heard his side of the story. Not everyone has the privilege of getting a prime time interview on BBC that they've negotiated over for 6 months and probably get final approval over it going out. If he didn't want to be tried in the court of public opinion...
Out of interest, if a jury hears all the evidence and then concludes that the case isn’t strong enough would you then say “oh, I was wrong and prejudged it”
Depends. Here's a question for you, do you think OJ Simpson was guilty?
OK.
He doesn’t have to prove his innocence. He could choose to, though.
🤷♂️
But that's not how the law works in any civilised country, because proving innocence is incredibly hard even for someone with all his resources.
How would you prove:
A) You didn't have sex with someone at a party 20 years ago. OR
B) You did have sex with someone at a party 20 years ago, but she told you she was 19, she seemed really excited to be in your company and was the one instigating things. There was no sign that she was doing anything against her will, and because of your wealth/fame lots of younger women seem attracted to you. She appeared at more than one party in different countries - so it seemed unlikely she had not wanted to be there. OR
C) You went to a lot of crazy parties 20 yrs ago, took drugs and had a great time. Because you were taking drugs you made sure your close protection officer was kept out the way - and you can't really recall who else was there. The guy who organised the parties is now dead, but he seemed to be good at making sure there were lots of fun people around who would help make it a good party rather than a bunch of middle-aged business men. You don't really remember all the details of the individual parties, but you are sure you didn't have non-consentual sex with anyone. OR
D) You had sex with a younger woman you believed was over 18 at a party. The person who organised the party encouraged younger women to be there and for it to be the sort of party where people have sex. You participated willingly and she did too. There was no sign anyone was being coerced. When it didn't become a relationship she became annoyed and started being difficult. Because of your public profile it was difficult for you to sort this out, but your friend, the party host, said he'd sort it out with her, you never heard any more from her until these allegations emerged. This was all a very long time ago and discussed on the phone not in writing. OR
E) You've actually been having a secret affair with the party host's wife for decades. He gets suspicious and because he's a bit crazy invites a load of what you assumed were escorts along to the party, to see if you can be tempted. You weren't interested but your mistress was keen to keep the affair under wraps so encouraged you to go to a room with one of them. You didn't have sex with her, but asked her to say that you did if they asked. You've never admitted the affair before because you believe you probably shared too much information with her and were effectively leaking internal family info to the press.
I'm not suggesting any of those things are actually true - but they are the sort of scenarios where someone MIGHT find themselves accused of criminal activity where they've perhaps been stupid rather than criminal. How would you prove that you were innocent in any of those cases. Whilst I've contrived them around Andy's predicament actually its not inconceivable that ordinary people could find themselves in similar weird circumstances. That is why it is not his job to establish his innocence - it would be really hard to do even if he is.
If I ever face civil charges in the US, I’ll do my best to ensure I have police officers making it hard for papers to be served. They’ll be up for that, yes?
It was a police officer who took the documents, which the other side said meant they were served. The judge hasn't decided if they were served but did make a remark about it pointlessly wasting a lot of time and money arguing about it and required the lawyers to appear in person at the next hearing, and allowed the claimant to serve again if they wished to.
If I ever face civil charges in the US, I’ll do my best to ensure I have police officers making it hard for papers to be served. They’ll be up for that, yes?
As has been pointed out a few times, you don't need Poluce assistance to avoid having others served, it just makes it easier.
NOBODY should ever have to prove their innocence.
A key point of justice in this country that so many people seem to forget.
PLEASE read Fake Law by the Secret Barrister, and see how governments in the last 25 years have eroded everyone's right to access justice and get a fair hearing, and then stop being so cavalier about a case which any one of us could face if circumstances were different.
Isn't the main issue that they've made it so hard to get legal aid? Not a problem for Prince Andrew is it? He literally has the best lawyers available.
because proving innocence is incredibly hard even for someone with all his resources.
Really impossible - you cannot prove a negative
Depends. Here’s a question for you, do you think OJ Simpson was guilty?
My initial response was - that's a stupid diversionary tactic from answering the question I put to you. However I've thought about it for a moment longer:
- I actually have no idea.
- I understand he was accused of stabbing his wife and her friend.
- I know a court found him not guilty of murder. I didn't hear the evidence, I don't even recall following the case at the time, so I have no idea what the basis for the prosecution was nor what defence was used.
- I know that public opinion is he did do it; I guess very few of them sat through all the evidence and the judge's charge and then weighed up the case carefully.
Its possibly a fair comparison - what's the point on going to court if the public get to make up their own mind anyway in a media storm.
If your question was, do I think Jury's ever get it wrong? Of course I do. Do I think they are more likely to get it wrong after hearing all the evidence than social media after hearing part of the story? Certainly not.
Isn’t the main issue that they’ve made it so hard to get legal aid? Not a problem for Prince Andrew is it? He literally has the best lawyers available.
Its one of the issues with access to justice in the UK - but certainly not the only one.
The innocence tax - that means even if the case against you was nonsense you probably end up out of pocket.
Attacks on Judges by ministers - for applying the law set by parliament.
Trial by media.
MPs being smart arses with parliamentary privilege and undermining on going cases.
Complaining about human rights laws which 99% of the time do good not bad.
Misrepresenting the legal process in the media and by politicians.
etc...
Secret Barrister presumes this is all intentional. I suspect that in the case of politicians its mostly incompetence rather than conspiracy!
Mostly irrelevant to an international civil case. However even if we gave everyone free access to lawyers for all cases - it would still be wrong to expect the accused to prove their innocence. Most of us went to a party 10-20 years ago. How would you prove you didn't have non-consensual sex at that party?
Most of us went to a party 10-20 years ago. How would you prove you didn’t have non-consensual sex at that party?
I couldn't. But I'd be able to prove that I wasn't close friends with a prolific convicted child sex trafficker.
The trouble with all this is that it's very easy to say it was consensual, make out the accuser is a gold-digger/slut etc, hence why so many cases never even get reported, let alone investigated/brought before a court. We as a society are strangely comfortable with that, and I find it odd when someone is more concerned about an 'innocent' man being slandered than the fact that rape is essentially almost de-criminalised.
I'm not sure what the answer is but currently the balance is waaaaaaaaaay in favour of the creepy sex-offender who wants to avoid justice.
I know a court found him not guilty of murder. I didn’t hear the evidence
The evidence of his guilt was overwhelming. He even wrote a book later detailing how he did it. Given the history of the LAPD in the years leading to the OJ Simpson case, and as it turned out, the subsequent years of continued violence against black people, it was obvious from the get-go that OJ wasn't going to be found guilty by a jury of his peers. It was in essence a massive "**** you" to the authorities.
I couldn’t. But I’d be able to prove that I wasn’t close friends with a prolific convicted child sex trafficker.
But that's not what he's being alleged to have done. Being friends with a sex trafficker is not actually a criminal offence. But then even Prince Andrew could probably defend the charge of friends with a "convicted child sex trafficker" - because Epstein hasn't actually been convicted when he died - he was on remand. He had previously been convicted of other sex offences but not trafficking.
The trouble with all this is that it’s very easy to say it was consensual, make out the accuser is a gold-digger/slut etc,
it is, just as its very easy to say it wasn't consentual! Its for the courts to decide with the first-hand witness testimony of the accuser, and other witnesses and (if they wish to) the defendant. Not a written list of claims, not a TV interview that was about the circumstances not the detail of the alleged offences etc.
hence why so many cases never even get reported, let alone investigated/brought before a court.
It is a contributing factor, but there are many factors - the length of time from reporting to conclusion of a trial is so long you are "inviting" this being top of your mind for 2-3 yrs. You will have to stand in the witness box and answer questions, which whilst in the UK have some standards on what can be asked, are often pointing out things you might not want reminded of. You will potentially have to undergo invasive medical examination. The case may not make it to court, if it does the crown may still screw it up through no fault of your own. If it makes it to conviction, they may appeal adding another year of uncertainty etc... The system is broken, but its not broken because people are allowed to deny accusations against them and ask the state to prove their case.
We as a society are strangely comfortable with that, and I find it odd when someone is more concerned about an ‘innocent’ man being slandered than the fact that rape is essentially almost de-criminalised.
I don't think society is that comfortable with it - but unfortunately the knee jerk response of society and politicians isn't about how can we make the police better equipped to deal with accusations, or prosecutors better resourced, or capacity in our courts - its how do we convict the accused - missing out the entire process in the middle, because there's no smoke without fire.
I’m not sure what the answer is but currently the balance is waaaaaaaaaay in favour of the creepy sex-offender who wants to avoid justice.
How many totally innocent people are you willing to send to prison to maybe catch more actual rapists in the process? And since, by and large, the law treats all offences with the same principles - are you willing to risk going to jail for murder, or theft, because we need to shift the burden of proof so its easier to convict the guilty?
Or in this case, we could just wait some more months and the courts might actually hear some evidence and make up their mind.
the courts might actually hear some evidence
That's a good idea. What's causing the hold up?
It was a police officer who took the documents, which the other side said meant they were served. The judge hasn’t decided if they were served but did make a remark about it pointlessly wasting a lot of time and money arguing about it and required the lawyers to appear in person at the next hearing, and allowed the claimant to serve again if they wished to.
Didn't answer the question. Convenient.
Here’s a question for you, do you think OJ Simpson was guilty?
Not so fun fact... that dodgy so and so Alan Dershowitz, who was himself implicated along with Epstein and negotiated the plea deal that meant Epstein could still live the high life after his initial conviction (after which Prince Andrew continued to visit), was also on OJ Simpson's defence team.
Dershowitz also arranged for private investigators to dig dirt on many of Epstein's victims so they could be intimidated and discredited...
Of course, there's much talk about due process and the rule of law, but many seem to be forgetting that much like diplomatic immunity (not forgetting that most of MI6s work will be dealt with via embassies around the world) intelligence services (who have oh so many questions to answer in all of this) are above the law; so much so in fact, that whilst everyone was losing their shit about covid, new laws were introduced to further protect their right to break the law...
Undercover informants working for the police and MI5 are going to be explicitly permitted for the first time under British law to commit crimes.
The unprecedented legislation to authorise and oversee crimes comes after years of unclear rules over when these agents can break the law.
The law will not specify exactly which crimes can be committed.
Which agencies will be able to authorise secret crimes?
MI5 and other intelligence bodies
Police forces and the National Crime agency
Immigration and Border Officers
HM Revenue and Customs, Serious Fraud Office
UK military forces
Ministry of Justice (investigations in prisons)
Competition and Markets Authority, Environment Agency, Financial Conduct Authority, Food Standards Agency, Gambling Commission and Medicines and Healthcare Regulation Authority
It would be foolish to assume that Prince Andrew (or Ghislaine Maxwell, or Jeffrey Epstein) has had no dealings with the intelligence services throughout his life
where someone MIGHT find themselves accused of criminal activity where they’ve perhaps been stupid rather than criminal.
Stupidity isn’t a defence and doesn’t negate criminality. If it was the vast majority of criminals wouldn’t be convicted.
None of us know if Andrew is innocent or guilty. What I do know is that refusing to give evidence after saying you would help in any investigation and then conducting a televised interview that makes you look like you’re guilty of all the crime isn’t a great start.
Unlike those nasty foreign children who keep getting in the way of drone strikes (whose only redeeming features are dispensing with all the faff of serving legal papers and freeing up valuable court space), our humble prince is clearly innocent:
TWITTER.COM He has finally had to accept the court papers are served. Now what is his next slimebag move to try to get away from the courts examination of him?
My guess is he will claim immunity.
BBC.CO.UK I think the argument will be as she took a settlement previously the case is not legal. We are a long way from any immunity claim.
I thought that had already been ruled on in the US courts - the deal was so badly written as to not be binding in this case or something
I think his lawyers will argue this in New York. Obviously he could choose to settle with no admission. Or he could go to a full jury hearing but I suspect this case will not get that far.
Here’s a question for you, do you think OJ Simpson was guilty?
Also remember that OJ was found not guilty of the criminal case, but guilty in the civil case!
Or they've checked and still not got enough evidence to reach the threshold for a criminal prosecution, see the OJ comment above.
Sounds like the Met are a bit busy just now to deal with the fall out of this one!
>
As most of it didn't occur in the UK they have a point.
No matter how scum baggy it might seem, but a 40 something Prince Andrew having sex with a 17 year old in the UK isn't illegal or considered rape. Hence it is an issue for the US courts - and it is a civil case.Andrew has big issues - reading the ST yesterday , it would appear that nobody in the royal circle likes him, most of the people who work with him feels he is arrogant and unpleasant. Whatever the outcome, he won't be playing first team Firm football ever again
No matter how scum baggy it might seem, but a 40 something Prince Andrew having sex with a 17 year old in the UK isn’t illegal
It is if she was trafficked or did not consent
Yeah, i doubt there is any evidence of any wrongdoing, or anything inappropriate, it's just funny that no matter what happens, the Met are always front page just now and getting negative stuff, this side of the atlantic it's more an Epstein/Maxwell issue
It is if she was trafficked or did not consent
I guess they have looked into that and consider it is difficult to prove? I have no idea of what details the prosecution cases have - but if there is too little evidence and it is going to fail, the what is the point in proceeding.
I am assuming a lot will hang on Ms Maxwell's conviction or not - she has been left in the "Only Pimp left alive" position
It's funny to see all the comments about PA. Whilst I totally agree with all the dislike disgust that he undoubtedly earns it's interesting to compare it with my personal experience with him.
A few years ago I caddied at a golf charity event (his in fact) in a four-ball with PA.
Tbh, I was expecting it all to be very hard work and a bit unpleasant. The reality was that he was fine. Pleasant and jokey (and sweary) with everyone including us caddies. Mucked it with looking for lost balls, cursing his own bad play. Shook hands with all the caddies, joked with us and just talked normally. I guess from start to finish I must have spent about 4.5 hours with him.It was actually quite a pleasant day out.
So don't take this as a vote for the man but just to give a personal insight.
perhaps that could be his epitaph "Quite Nice for a Nonce."
There is plenty of evidence of Andrew behaving badly and that Guiffres story is true.
I do however doubt that there is anything like enough for a criminal conviction in the UK. firstly Guiffre was over the UK age of consent and also its a he said / she said situation. add to that most of the crimes happened outside of the UK
I have no doubt at all Andrew is guilty. I have huge doubts that there is anything like enough evidence for a UK criminal conviction. Us criminal conviction is a different matter as us the US civil case
Pleasant and jokey (and sweary) with everyone including us caddies.
Just one of the lads?
anyone a regular listener to richard herring's rhlstp podcast?
Richard has been insinuating the Prince is a sleaze for years - once or twice he's gone off on rants about him that have been bleeped out!! for comedic affect im sure, but does anyone know what Rich's opinion is founded on?
Just one of the lads?
I wouldn't go as far as that and no one was taking the p*ss out of him, other than himself.
None of the other "lads" had their security man discreetly walking around with them either.
Oh and btw, none of the other players were what you might call "lads" ...all a bit posh (but very pleasant).
No matter how scum baggy it might seem, but a 40 something Prince Andrew having sex with a 17 year old in the UK isn’t illegal or considered rape.
I see this idea banded about on pro royal newspaper comment sections and call it out as false as the case is she is American and in the US the legal age is 18.
The legal age of consent in Japan is 13, so how does that argument stand if you took a 13yre old English girl to Japan to have sex with ?,do you think the UK courts would accept that as a defence.
I see this idea banded about on pro royal newspaper comment sections and call it out as false as the case is she is American and in the US the legal age is 18.
The legal age of consent in Japan is 13, so how does that argument stand if you took a 13yre old English girl to Japan to have sex with ?,do you think the courts would accept that as a defence.
Depends on the law of the land where to offence took place. I know age of consent in NL is about 12 - but there cannot be a big age gap between the two people involved.
Andrew may well be guilty of whatever he is being accused of in the States , under their laws, but will not be guilty of the same here in the UK.
And then it become about proving consent and trafficking - so we are on to a he said/ she said discussion. Hence why they will not be proceeding.
And remember it is being pursued as a civil, not a criminal, case
Depends on the law of the land where to offence took place.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. Have a read. Changed that for UK citizens' acting abroad (for these kind of offences and others). Doesn't apply the other way around though (so it depends on USA/state law).
Personally I think jimmy748 has it, but then I am a raging cynic!
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
Which the alleged offences predate. And in any case it only applies if it is an offence in England and Wales or NI.
The question was a hypothetical one about jurisdiction, not about the particulars of this case.
she is American and in the US the legal age is 18.
The legal age is state-specific. That's where the 'trafficking' allegation comes in, moving someone across the border from a state where she's underage to one where she isn't is also illegal. As I understand it, anyway.