As I write this, and as you probably all know, Prince Andrew of England has been implicated in the Jeff Epstein pedophile ring case.
The only question I have (and this is purely a factual question) what is the worst legally that Prince Andrew face?
Could he go to prison? Or at the very least get sued?
Historically kings and princes of England (and other places too I’m sure) could do no wrong. But does that still apply today? And has it ever happened before?
:):):)
The monarch cannot be prosecuted, but other members of the royal family enjoy no immunity. Princess Anne has a conviction for a motoring offence. (She pleaded guilty. Speeding, if I remember correctly.)
As to what legal hazard Andrew is exposed to, that very much depends on what he has done.
Sovereign immunity does not apply, since he is not the monarch, if that’s what you mean. Certainly he is theoretically subject to arrest and penalties.
As for “the king can do no wrong”, well, Charles I tried that line, but it didn’t go over too well.
Man oh man. I love Andy.
How will this protect him from prosecution?
It won’t. I just thought he was one of the
more normal members of the Royal family. I’ve always admired him. Dang it. I hope it’s not true.
Anne does have multiple speeding tickets, but she also has a criminal conviction under the Dangerous Dogs Act.
The Queen’s cousin Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, resigned as president of the Institute of Advanced Motorists (after 32 years in the job!) after he lost his license for six months after his fourth speeding ticket in three years.
Maybe he should apply for the presidency of the Institute of Beginner Motorists then.
I guess the question is - could Andrew be extradited? Is the word of one accuser sufficient evidence? I assume “I had no idea she was underage” is a valid defence? (She was at the time 17, I think the news said) Then comes the question of whether the Americans would ask for his extradition, and whether the British government would allow extradition proceedings to proceed.
Too many “if” questions, too many easier targets for prosecution. I’m guessing nothing will happen and he’ll withdraw to seclusion for a few years til it blows over.
In this poll of people who are already fans of QEII he is at the bottom, with all of his siblings and his own daughters above. The press is already pointing out that he stayed with Epstein following his (Epstein’s) first convictions and that there are pictures showing him with his accuser. Nonetheless I think any attempt at prosecution would be resisted and would get tied up in the courts for a long long time. The mud, on the other hand, is already sticking…
The alleged sexual encounter with a 17-year old is said to have occurred in London - it was the girl who travelled for the occasion, not the Duke. So (a) the question of extradition presumably wouldn’t arise; any prosecution would be in the English courts, but (b) the age of consent in England and Wales is 16, so absent other aggravating factors there may be no crime here on the part of the Duke.
Well, years ago, his nickname was Randy Andy. Apparently he’s still in the game.
(But as she was of legal age at the time, I don’t see any case against him.)
There might be other possible charges, e.g. if she was trafficked to London to have sex with him, and he was complicit in that. But they would depend on facts not yet established (or even, SFAIK, alleged).
Charles I was essentially right, in a legal sense. The closest that 17th century England had to an “independent judiciary” had already concluded the rump Parliament’s attempt to try the King was unlawful, and the House of Lords rejected it. The Parliament then setup a new supreme tribunal, existing for the sole purpose of trying Charles. They then declared that unlike all other laws passed by Parliament, it was a special act that did not require royal assent or approval in the House of Lords.
It then established 135 commissioners to sit in judgement of the King; many of whom chose to not do so out of fear of being involved in the process. These commissioners ultimately convicted and sentenced to death Charles for treason. But by the legal standards both then and now it was constitutionally and legally improper. The consensus opinion even today is that it would be a constitutional difficulty and legal complexity to try the Queen for a crime. In practice it’s probably the case a monarch that committed any sort of serious crime would abdicate to avoid a constitutional catastrophe, and for minor crimes the monarch would probably just submit to the process and pay a fine or whatever. I believe QEII has actually paid civil fines on a few things like her dogs biting people.
I don’t think she’s ever been prosecuted. The case against Princess Anne for her dog biting some kids was brought as Regina [The Queen] v. Anne Elizabeth Alice Laurence. Regina v. Regina would be novel.
Looks like you are right–for some reason I thought it was the Queen who had paid a small fine when one of her dogs bit a staffer, but it was Princess Anne.
I’d also add to my earlier post–the rump Parliament which passed legislation without concurrence of the Lords or Royal Assent to establish Charles’ tribunal, was also called the rump Parliament because what essentially amounted to a military coup had forcibly driven out all of the other members of Parliament who the New Model Army felt were too sympathetic to negotiating (instead of punishing) Charles.
The common historical view is Charles was a bad King, and the Parliamentary forces were mostly in the right, but there was also what amounted to basically a military coup at the end of the 2nd Civil War in which the army lead by Cromwell seized effective power and executed Charles in what can only be seen as an extralegal/constitutional act. It’s not good precedent for proper constitutional process in Britain.
The classic formulation, in 1066 And All That was that “The Roundheads were Right but Repulsive, while the Cavaliers were Wrong but Wromantic”.
She’s alleging it - she says she was forced (cite). Whether she can provide enough evidence to prove that is another matter, but it’s not unprecedented to have a sexual assault prosecution go forward after that amount of time
Yes. But even assuming that she can show she was forced, can she show she was forced by the Duke, or with his knowledge?
The event happened some years ago, and you’d need to look at what the state of English law was at the time with regard to offences around sexual slavery/trafficking, and whether the facts of this case indicate that there’s an offence with which he can be charged. There’s no suggestion (SFAIK) that he himself trafficked her, or compelled her, or was aware that she was under any kind of compulsion, or was even aware that she was being paid, so unless evidence of something like that emerges, or English law has some offence that I can’t even imagine that would cover the facts already alleged, I think we’re a long way from the prospect of a charge.
Wouldn’t the Prince normally be traveling with diplomatic immunity?