This is commonly used when a host state becomes aware that a diplomat is actually a spy; which isn’t super uncommon because diplomatic status is frequently used to cover espionage activities. When the host state determines a specific person is behaving this way, they declare them persona non grata and they need to get the fuck out. Obviously the spies in country who work without the cover of immunity are subject to much worse outcomes.
My understanding is that it can be more a matter of such a diplomat being not just a spy, but one who has become too much of a nuisance, or of more diplomatic value as an expellee than a known and observable quantity. I’m sure I read somewhere that the supposedly under cover spies are often known for quite some time before it becomes useful to make a thing of expelling them (e g., the time the UK expelled 100+ Soviet agents - they hadn’t just discovered them). There can be a grey area between reporting back home on what’s going on in any given sector, and secret espionage.
I assume they start with the obvious, they hold the person’s passport so they are not going anywhere. (I read some article about this tactic being used in Amsterdam - and it’s a common tactic with domestics held in virtual slavery everywhere) If you cannot travel to get away, don’t have basic ID, then your options are very limited. I assume quite often these victims are in a foreign country, which also limits their options; they know if they go to the authorities they will be deported at best.
More on the case: The civil suit against Prince Andrew has wider implications for the royal family - CNN
The suit alleges that the prince had sex with Guiffre in New York; almost everything else I’ve read before this (and event the lined article) don’t specifically mention New York. Other news articles allege sexual activity also happened in New York, where it would be a crime.
The alleged incident in London happens by her account when she was 17, and IIRC the age of consent in Britain is 16, so there’s no statutory rape charge there. Andrew would be acting inappropriately, but not criminally, unless somehow one can prove Guiffre was coerced (she was) and Andrew knew this. Andrew strikes me from all the allegations to be the sort who was happy to take advantage of free “entertainment” and Epstein appears to be the sort to provide it on his own volition to ingratiate himself with A-list celebrities like Andrew.
So if Andrew argues that all he did was take advantage of what appears to be a promiscuous partygoer who was an Epstein hanger-on, what could she reasonably sue for? OTOH, if she can show there were encounters in NYC, the prince is in deep doo-doo.
The key point here is discovery. By fighting the suit, he opens himself to being deposed.
The other question is - assuming she wins, most likely by default, what can she get? What does Andrew personally own and what can a US court do to seize it? Would British courts honor a US order to pay up? As I recall from discussions of Harry’s finances, the lesser royals tend to exist on the sufferance and generosity of the crown itself.
The age of consent in New York is 17 so it would not be a crime there either.
Skimming the complaint, I think the point of it being in New York (and her being 17) is that is a sex offense against a minor (under 18) and New York enacted a statute that allows suits involving certain child victims to file suit (within a special window) regardless of how long ago the crime occurred. The actual allegations are that he forced her to perform acts against her will, which is prohibited regardless of her age.
Google tells me the age of consent in NYC is 17, the age of consent to marry is now 18.
So the key would be showing that Andrew forced her. I assume without allowing a deposition, Andrew would forfeit the case. If he tried to fight it, presumably soon his deposition would become public and who knows what they would ask him…
We should also note that buying/selling sex is not itself illegal in England, although many of the things surrounding it are.
I would imagine as an A list celebrity, Andy does not have to pay for the “entertainment”, others are ahppy to throw it his way. So then the only question would be, what does Guiffre mean by “forced” and how can she prove she objected and Andrew used force?
In a lawsuit such as this, is there the equivalent of a rape-shield law which means neither side can delve into the additional details of the other party’s sex life, or would “establishing a pattern” be a valid option for then to ask Andrew all sorts of detailed questions about his sex life? I imagine there’s a lot of questions he does not want to answer under oath, on the record.
Is there such a thing as a halfway defense, where he refuses to be deposed but his lawyers still argue against the case and also against the size of any default judgement?
All in all, I don’t foresee things going very well for him.
Guiffre is a US citizen and became involved with Maxwell and Epstein in the US so this wouldn’t really work in this case.
It should work… Wait, what are we talking about? work what?
Holding her passport
From the newspaper article describing the lawsuit, she alleges that Epstein and Maxwell forced her to have sex with Andrew in London and NYC, except in the Virgin Islands she claims Andrew himself forced her (if I’m reading the article correctly); and the age of consent in the Virgin Islands is 18.
I would imagine at this point Andrew is up the creek and looking frantically for the paddle.
Does anybody have a good idea how much practical (as opposed to purely PR) trouble this could cause for Andrew? Even if he’s found guilty, I have great difficulty imagining that the British government will hand him over to a foreign country.
It’s a civil case (the one linked above–maybe there’s more) so no one has to hand anyone over. The most they’ll get is a monetary judgment, and they they have to jump through some interesting hoops to try to collect.
I’m not sure how or why I got to thinking that it was a criminal case. Since it’s civil, I suppose the main issue is one of embarrassment.
As I said earlier, the question is what he has to lose. Since he’s not the heir, he doesn’t have any decent sized estates or income AFAIK. (Recall the discussions about Harry and whether he could really make a go of it without handouts from Gran and Dad). So any judgement would be hard to collect.
However, even though this is a civil case, he may have to answer for any activity with underage girls in the Virgin Islands if he steps foot on American soil. I’m going to assume Britain would not turn him over. Not sure what other countries would do, whether they would arrest him on behalf of the USA for extradition absent a warrant and formal charges? I presume most of them would not want the hassle, but he does have to be careful where he goes on vacation. I also presume if there were a general arrest warrant out, the British authorities would know and warn him.
Not sure why the police in NYC would want to talk to him, unless Giuffre also alleges he had activities with other girls who were under 17. There may be more to this than is published.
IANAL, but IMHO her case hinges on how Andrew knew (should have known?) she was being forced; or what she means when she says he forced her. Also what the NY state law says. Would activities under 18 be something that someone could sue over if the age of consent is 17? Would Andrew be in the wrong legally if he assumed she was just a paid prostitute? (of course he was very wrong morally, ethically).
You’d think that. On paper he gets a ~20,000 pound/year pension from the navy and ~250,000 pounds/year from the queen for his ‘official duties’ as a prince. The latter may be seriously threatened.
On the other hand through the years he has spent millions, the direct source of that being somewhat mysterious. He and his wife were given Sunninghill Park, which they sold for a pretty penny. Which may explain most of that. They somehow financed the purchase of Chalet Helora in Switzerland for ~18 million pounds in 2014 ostensibly to provide for their daughters, but defaulted on the very large down payment in 2019 and now have it for sale for 18.6 million. Apparently to clear the debt.
What’s the left after all of this would presumably be the target. Hundreds of thousands? Millions? Who knows.
Allegedly Charles is one of the richest guys in Britain, based on what he’s done with his estates and the businesses he’s grown on them. The Queen too is personal owner of some very large estates and income as well as government support. Sounds like Andrew basically has nothing except his pension and handouts. Assuming Giuffre wins (likely) then either she’ll have trouble collecting, or perhaps Betty or Charles will negotiate an number to get her and this whole bad publicity mess to go away. Or, they will hang Andrew out to dry to teach him a lesson.
It brings to mind the whole mess created by Edward VIII when he abdicated, and essentially was ostracized and shunned by the royal family for the rest of his life.