Prince Andrew Thread 3

[Roussette]

Here is the previous thread...

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/the_royal_family/4443261-Prince-Andrew-Thread-2?watched=1&msgid=114083283#114083283

@Malibuismysecrethome

Just thinking that if it goes to trial and VG gets awarded several millions is there any way of enforcing the damages as it’s an American Civil Court Case. PA resides in the UK.

I believe UK courts are required by treaty to assist US courts in enforcing valid US court judgements against UK citizens.

They would certainly start by asking for a list of all Prince Andrews US-held assets. Assuming they have confidence in a court that has his mums coat of arms above the judge.

Of course they might just wait for King Charles first state visit and roll out banners demanding payments from the Pedo [sic] prince (i.e. his brother).

@starlight13

At last some good news! I hope VG drags that prince of sleaze through the dirt. He's a rapist and a racist - let's hope Meghan gets called upon to testify against him. It was PA who made the comments to her about Archie's skin colour.

I thought the comments were made to Harry.

Why would she be called to testify? I read VG’s lawyer said both her and Prince Charles could be called and wondered what evidence either would have relating to the case.

@starlight13

At last some good news! I hope VG drags that prince of sleaze through the dirt. He's a rapist and a racist - let's hope Meghan gets called upon to testify against him. It was PA who made the comments to her about Archie's skin colour.

Your source? I've not read that before.

@BobbieMarkowe

I’m not altogether hopeful that VG will win the case but regardless of the outcome it helps to change the narrative.

I’m sure I’m not the only person here who had things happen in their teens and didn’t grasp how wrong the situation was until much later?

The law, and our culture are very muddy on consent. You can put numbers on it, you can dissect what she said or didn’t say etc but as a middle aged woman I recognise that I think very, very differently now than I did as a teenager. And I know that a middle aged man taking advantage of a teen in any circumstances is grim.

They can phwoar all they like, and nudge and wink about “liking em young” but cases like these shine a light. They make it that little bit more difficult for men to close ranks like they’ve traditionally done.

I think she’s incredibly brave to do this.

Well said.

There's no reciprocal agreement btwn UK and the US to enforce judgments. You would have to sue them separately for the debt in an English court, I think. (IANAL)

I read that owing to a quirk they can't enforce any damages award in English if it's a default judgment (ie if Andrew doesn't defend the case).

Of course that would not be a great look.

in England*

Virginia Giuffre's lawyers react.

Sigrid McCawley calls it "another important step in Virginia‘s heroic and determined pursuit of justice as a survivor of sex trafficking."

David Boies says Giuffre "looks forward to a judicial determination of the merits of those claims."

Very true @BobbieMarkowe

We often forget that teenagers are often unable to fully comprehend certain situations.

I was talking to a friend today about our teenage years when we both had a Saturday job in a high street store. One of the married managers who was in his early 40s used to take us all out to a pub after work on and then started a relationship with one of our friends. We were barely 17 at the time. I can honestly say we had no inkling how disturbing this was - a man old enough to be our dad plying us with alcohol and sleeping with our friend.

My guess is that he'll refuse to settle or to engage with the trial, and it'll be a default verdict.

And @BobbieMarkowe, your words will strike a chord with many of us, unfortunately.

Thank you! I didn’t think a civil award would be enforceable in the UK.

@WinnieTheW0rm

My guess is that he'll refuse to settle or to engage with the trial, and it'll be a default verdict.

That would be the safest option financially. But it will mean everyone will be sure he is guilty however his PR spins it.

There was some discussion on the last thread re the possibility of Maxwell being retried. Some people were concerned that victims of sexual abuse were being automatically excluded from serving on the jury. I have now heard from a US lawyer who confirms that is not the case. However, if the jurors had answered yes to the relevant question, the judge would have asked them further questions in an attempt to determine whether they could try the case fairly. They would only have been excluded if the judge believed they could not do so.

If one or both of them did lie on the form, it doesn't automatically mean the judge will grant a retrial. The question she will have to consider is whether an honest answer would have given the defence a valid basis to challenge the juror.

That would be the safest option financially. But it will mean everyone will be sure he is guilty however his PR spins it.

They'd be more sure if he settled.

And goodness-only-knows-what could come out in a trial.

@WinnieTheW0rm

My guess is that he'll refuse to settle or to engage with the trial, and it'll be a default verdict.

if convicted would that then mean pa has to travel carefully in case of international arrest warrants?

@WinnieTheW0rm

That would be the safest option financially. But it will mean everyone will be sure he is guilty however his PR spins it.

They'd be more sure if he settled.

And goodness-only-knows-what could come out in a trial.

Yes I agree that the trial will probably lead to damaging revelations. Maxwell's did.

if convicted would that then mean pa has to travel carefully in case of international arrest warrants?

He cannot be convicted, as this is a civil, not a criminal case.

Yes, they'll want to get the money out of him. If he hany sense (which I'm really not sure he has) he'll pay up quietly.
Then live in quietly in retirement.

William and Kate are due to go to America next year for the Earthshot Prize. I wonder if that will still happen in America now?
I know, or assume anyway that they are not involved in anyway. But if there is a default judgement, it might lead to general hostility against the whole Royal Family?

@WinnieTheW0rm that is assuming she accepts a payout.

@PlanktonsComputerWife

There's no reciprocal agreement btwn UK and the US to enforce judgments. You would have to sue them separately for the debt in an English court, I think. (IANAL)

I read that owing to a quirk they can't enforce any damages award in English if it's a default judgment (ie if Andrew doesn't defend the case).

Of course that would not be a great look.

The courts in the UK will enforce a US judgement if the following conditions are met:

• the judgement is final and conclusive, i.e. there is no appeal, nor are there any conflicting prior judgements

• it is for an ascertainable and definite sum of money

• the US court had jurisdiction. This will normally be accepted if the person against whom the judgement was made was in the US when proceedings were issued or has otherwise submitted to the jurisdiction of the US court. I think this is what you are referring to regarding default judgements - if the defendant does not respond to the courts at all and default judgement is entered, the UK courts may conclude that the US court did not have jurisdiction

• the judgement was not obtained fraudulently

• enforcing the judgement would not be contrary to public policy or the European Convention on Human Rights, so awards that are intended to be punitive are unenforceable

• the judgement was not awarded in a manner that was contrary to natural justice

[quote AllThePogs]@WinnieTheW0rm that is assuming she accepts a payout.[/quote]
True.

But if it's a default judgement, then why would she not?

[quote AllThePogs]@WinnieTheW0rm that is assuming she accepts a payout.[/quote]
I'm sure I've read somewhere that she has said that it's not about the money.

In which case she surely doesn't take a settlement & accepts whatever the outcome is?

I think PA is sunk either way tbh.

If she doesn't manage to prove her case & win damages, there's still the fact that he met Epstein after he came out of jail.

That would be the safest option financially. But it will mean everyone will be sure he is guilty however his PR spins it

It's the safest option all round. If he gives evidence he could inadvertently lay the groundwork for a potential criminal charge. It's also the best safeguard for what if anything remains of his tattered reputation in that recent reports referred to more that may come out in the process of discovery:

www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/lawyers-prince-andrew-sex-claims-court-virginia-giuffre-epstein-b975006.html

So pleased to have you back on the thread, @prh47bridge. Ordinary civil procedure is baffling enough to a layman without adding in the international element.

Thank you for the information. It's interesting that the American-style punitive awards can't be enforced here, and probably quite a good thing, now I think about it.

Also interesting about GM, @prh47bridge. The newspaper reports made a retrial sound like a dead cert, but it sounds less slamdunk than that.

Did your American colleague have any opinion as to the likelihood of a mistrial's being declared?