Prince Andrew’s attorneys say his accuser was over New York’s authorized age of consent throughout alleged sexual abuse by him at Jeffrey Epstein’s mansion.
Virginia Giuffre filed a civil lawsuit in opposition to the Duke of York saying she was made to have intercourse with him by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell when she was 17 and he was 41, in 2001.
The prince’s attorneys need the lawsuit thrown out and tried to heap stress on his accuser by arguing she was of the authorized age of consent on the time of the allegation. Giuffre’s personal courtroom filings describe her as a baby.
If thought-about a minor by the courtroom, she would solely have to show intercourse occurred between her and Andrew with a purpose to have a case.
The duke’s attorneys argued, nonetheless, that she was an grownup below consent legal guidelines and due to this fact might want to actively show she did not consent to ensure that the declare to proceed.
The lawsuit depends on the New York Little one Victims Act [CVA], which created a window during which little one abuse victims may carry historic claims that may ordinarily be thought-about out of time.
The CVA requires a legal offense to have been dedicated in opposition to a baby below 18, whereas New York legislation information the age of consent at 17, creating a gray space.
Prince Andrew’s group are arguing she could also be classed as a baby below the CVA, however not below consent legal guidelines and due to this fact she should show she did not consent.
Their courtroom submitting, seen by Newsweek, reads: “The CVA revives claims for many who allegedly suffered hurt on account of sure sexual offenses they declare had been dedicated in opposition to them once they had been below the age of eighteen, regardless that the age of consent in New York is seventeen.
“Whereas lack of consent is established as a matter of legislation for people who had been below the age of seventeen on the time of the alleged underlying sexual offense, the problem of consent is unsettled with regard to these—like Giuffre—who had been between the ages of seventeen and eighteen.”
The prince’s attorneys argue Giuffre is searching for to ascertain a scarcity of consent by way of “implied menace,” however prompt the case can be troublesome to make 20 years on from the alleged incident.
The courtroom submitting learn: “These extremely subjective determinations are the sort almost certainly to be hampered by the passage of time, as recollections fade, false recollections are created, and witnesses die or in any other case change into unavailable.
“Right here, the one witnesses to the purported implied threats below which Giuffre
allegedly engaged in unconsented intercourse acts with Prince Andrew are Epstein (deceased), Maxwell (incarcerated), Prince Andrew (the accused) and Giuffre herself.”
Maxwell is at present on trial on Epstein-related sex-trafficking prices, which she denies.
An earlier submitting by Giuffre’s lawyer learn: “On one event, Prince Andrew sexually abused [Giuffre] in London at Maxwell’s dwelling.
“Throughout this encounter, Epstein, Maxwell, and Prince Andrew compelled [Giuffre], a baby, to have sexual activity with Prince Andrew in opposition to her will.”
It added: “On one other event, Prince Andrew sexually abused [Giuffre] in Epstein’s New York mansion on this District.
“Throughout this encounter, Maxwell compelled [Giuffre], a baby, and one other sufferer to sit down on Prince Andrew’s lap as Prince Andrew touched her.
“Throughout his go to to New York, Prince Andrew compelled [Giuffre] to have interaction in intercourse acts in opposition to her will.”
Nevertheless, the duke’s courtroom submitting accused Giuffre’s attorneys of giving insufficient details about her allegations, suggesting she was being intentionally obscure.
Their courtroom submitting learn: “Giuffre’s refusal to incorporate something however essentially the most conclusory allegations is puzzling given her sample of revealing to the media the purported particulars of the identical allegations included within the Grievance.
“Maybe it’s Giuffre’s tendency to vary her story that prompted her to maintain the allegations of the Grievance obscure, in order to not decide to any particular account.
“Regardless of the motivating issue, Giuffre’s Grievance is poor and fails to state a declare upon which reduction could also be granted.”