Andrew breaking the law

[Gizzagizza]

So, can I just get this straight - at the time Prince Andrew slept with the 17 year old Virginia Giuffre - was it illegal in the UK to have sex with a prostitute who was under 18? Was illegal to have sex with someone who had been trafficked? I know it is now.

Sorry, why exactly are you asking what loopholes there are to get a Prince out of trouble when he's been linked to multiple rapists and paedophiles?

Do you not realise what rape is? It doesn't matter if you're trafficked, getting paid, or 95 years old- if you don't want it, it's rape.

You look as dodgy as anything trying to excuse a rapist!

Exactly, I think there are a few people around who believe rape is only rape when a man drags a woman off the street, walking home alone at night, preferably not in a short skirt or drunk.

Anyway, this will never go to court. Out of the three key witnesses, 2 are dead and the 3rd is in prison, plus Andrew is denying ever having met her.

No one is looking for loopholes to get Andrew out of trouble. We are merely examining whether or not he has committed a crime. Are you saying that we are not allowed to try and understand this? It is possible to ascertain that Andrew did not act illegally (probably) while still finding his behaviour morally repugnant.

For reference, the questions asked by the OP was:

”So, can I just get this straight - at the time Prince Andrew slept with the 17 year old Virginia Giuffre - was it illegal in the UK to have sex with a prostitute who was under 18? Was illegal to have sex with someone who had been trafficked? I know it is now.”

That’s a perfectly reasonable question. It’s not “what does an individual poster consider rape to be?”, it is “what does the UK law consider rape to be”. They are, obviously, not the same.

The answer depends on what the law was in the UK at the time the events at issue took place (March 10 2001). The law is not static, but changes from time to time, and new laws when introduced are not retrospective. So to answer the question entirely depends on the relevant law around sexual offences in the UK on 10 March 2001. Future changes to the law are irrelevant. We can fairly confidently say the same events, if they happened now, would likely be criminal offences, but that its a different question.

Sections 57-59 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 introduced offences around trafficking into the UK for sexual exploitation. As these provisions were enacted after the events in question took place, they are not relevant here. This case would be looked at based on the law as it was before the Sexual Offences 2003 was enacted. Under this law, the impact of trafficking on consent was not considered.

The second important point is that to be guilty of a crime two separate elements must be proved: the criminal activity (I.e. that Andrew had sex with Virginia Giuffre) and the relevant mental state. For sexual offences, the CPS has to prove that the person being sexually assaulted/raped do not consent, and the accused knew this, or should have known this. This is a very technical area which has been reviewed time and again by the criminal courts - the upshot is that there is no simple test, each situation must be fully examined. I’ve linked to the CPS guidelines below on consent in case anyone is interested, so you can see how complicated an issue it is.

One point to note is that prior to 2003 there was a defence of a genuine though unreasonably mistaken belief as to the consent of the complainant - that has now been abolished. But that is relevant to assessing whether Andrew had the necessary mental state to make this criminal conduct in 2001.

So this isn’t an easy question to answer and requires a bit of legal archaeology. It’s an interesting question though, even though ultimately it makes no difference to people’s judgements on Andrew’s behaviour. He doesn’t need to have committed a rime for people to justifiably feel he has behaved appallingly, and that his consequences are deserved. Equally though, it’s not being an apologist to point out that his behaviour in 2001 may not have been criminal. That’s just a legal conclusion. You may not like it, but the law is what is it, not what posters want it to be….

www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-6-consent

Thank you @Serenster .

Yes - thank you!

Did the man that raped a 17 year old potential trafficking victim commit a crime? Yeah huns he did.

Thank-you. Thats my thoughts exactly.

Yes he is a sleeze bag, with next to no morals, but did he actually know or realise, the girls were trafficked against their will, or did he think they were 100% up for no strings sex?
Did he commit a crime against the law at the time, in any country?

You aren’t making any rational arguments, and that isn’t going to get Andrew in court. If you want him to pay, you need to work out exactly what he did, when, and why it was illegal. There are plenty of fuckers I’d like to see in prison, but sadly my disgust isn’t enough.

I agree with a PP the place to start is with the protection he’d have had back then. I don’t know however what kind of confidentiality stuff they’d be subject to. Safeguarding overrides everything, but this is historic so I don’t know if it still does.

You don’t get to choose what is or isn’t a crime. If what Andrew did was not illegal at the time then he didn’t commit a crime - whether you like it or not.

It’s not ok to make enquiries using personal information on someone that should be private and has obviously been acquired illegally!

I cannot believe that people are still defending Andrew on these threads!

I would encourage everyone to read the Lownie book. No one will be defending him having done so.

Pretty grim to call Virginia a “potential” trafficking victim - do you not believe her then?

Virginia was trafficked and there’s a woman in prison in the US doing a 20 year prison sentence because she was found the have trafficked girls. Virginia was one of the trafficked girls. I think it’s grim that some people don’t believe her. But they are also disbelieving the findings of the US justice system. What do girls and women need to do to be believed?

Yes. Andrew is being investigated for this because it’s a serious offense. If guilty, it could see him serve a long prison sentence. (I won’t hold my breath though - the Royal Family are expert loop finders).

Had he employed private investigators and not have used her private under the law social security number (jfc) there probably wouldn’t have been a problem? But, as usual Andrew, would think he’s there to be served.

I would encourage everyone to read the Lownie book. No one will be defending him having done so.

I agree. But it won't be read by those who should read it

Calling VG a 'potential' trafficking victim is shaming her and I doubt the woman who manipulated her would be in prison for 19 years for trafficking if she was only 'potentially' a sex trafficked victim

It’s one thing to examine whether Andrew’s behaviour was illegal in the various jurisdictions at the time, but minimising what happened to these women by calling Virginia “potentially” trafficked is pretty repulsive.

I very much doubt Andrew could be tried for a crime regarding Ms Guiffre.
First, you would need to establish that he had sex with Ms Guiffre (which he denies).
The only evidence he knew Ms Guiffre is the photo, which could be a fake, though I very much doubt it.
The point is that as Ms Guiffre is deceased, she can no longer be cross examined, and therefore to accept that everything she said in her book as the truth is rather doubtful.
What I mean is legally, she would need to be cross examined. Aanother person she claimed to have had sex with, she later admitted to making a mistake.
(therefore her credibility could be used against her).
So, Unlikely to come to a trial.
However, more dubious is some of the financial shenanigans.
Lets see what else is to come out.
Of course his behaviour at the very least in continuing to associate with Epstein a convicted sex trafficker, is morally repugnant, and he has definitely be found guilty in the court of public opinion.

@milveycrohn even if she was still alive it would have been very difficult to secure a conviction.

Proving beyond all reasonable doubt that he knew she was trafficked, would be almost impossible.
And was that law in even place at the time?

It would probably have been horrific for her to have been cross examined by ruthless lawyers too.

I know there's right and wrong, good, bad and downright evil, but wasn't she being paid £15k per 'job' ?

Which also muddys the waters.

Where was that money coming from Epstein himself from his other business ventures?

Was Andrew and others paying Epstein, which makes Epstein a pimp, Taking his profit before passing money to the young women?

And how would anyone prove any of it. Did they deal in cash, or bank transfers disguised as payments for stuff.

Epstein is reported to have lent Fergie £15k at one point, was that really Fergies debt, or is Andrew in there somewhere?
£15k to people in that league is probably nothing.

Thanks for that well though out post.

According to Lownie in his talk recently to an audience in Cambridge (see the other thread for a link! Absolutely mind boggling!) Andrew selected and ‘ordered’ Virginia from a big book that Epstein showed him, full of colour photos of the underage girls that he was abusing.

Epstein's victims, fed up with waiting for the release of the Epstein files, are now putting together their own list of the men they had sex with. Andrew will not be the only man fearing this list's publication.

I can see lots of issues with them trying to put together a list.

I wouldn't be surprised if half the time the girls weren't given more than a nickname, this is Don/ Jeff/ Andy etc he wants you to entertain him tonight.
So unless they were really famous the girls wouldn't have had a clue. It's 20 years peoples looks change.

Could you explain what you mean by this?