Prince Andrew's 'time-wasting bluff': Legal experts suggest duke's demand for trial by jury could be a bid to 'buy time' and force 'settlement' with Virginia Roberts... because he is unlikely 'to bet on public opinion' after Newsnight disaster

 Prince Andrew’s demands for a ‘trial by jury’ to tackle sex abuse allegations made by a Jeffrey Epstein ‘sex slave’ head-on are a ‘bluff’ and a desperate bid to ‘buy time’ to reach an out-of-court settlement with his accuser, it was suggested by legal experts today.

Legal experts had predicted the Duke of York would seek a settlement with Virginia Roberts Giuffre after the Queen dramatically stripped him of his military roles, widely seen as the monarchy distancing itself from any potentially damaging developments.

But Andrew has taken the decision to face Miss Roberts in a US court, opening himself up to being cross-examined on camera by one of America’s most feared trial lawyers, with embarrassing questions on everything from his sex life and ‘private parts’ to what he has told his mother. 

Media lawyer Mark Stephens earlier warned that the bombshell lawsuit could ‘overshadow’ Her Majesty’s Platinum Jubilee – and ultimately risks ‘bringing down the monarchy’.

But he admitted it could be a final piece of ‘classic brinkmanship’ to force down the reputed £10million settlement he may have to offer to Miss Roberts, who now uses her married name Giuffre. He also speculated on whether the duke is ‘bluffing’ and may still settle to avoid damaging the standing of the monarchy.

‘I think he’s buying time for settlement. David Boies wants to get to the Queen’s money, which won’t happen. But we are just 10 days from Ascension Day and the beginning of the Platinum Jubilee,’ Mr Stephens said.

Kate MacNab, a solicitor at Reeds Solicitors, told MailOnline: ‘It may seem like an odd route to take – betting on public opinion – after his performance on Newsnight, but perhaps he is just biding his time?

‘Perhaps by agreeing to her initial wish of having a jury trial, he is wanting to position himself as having nothing to hide? Perhaps this will force an out-of-court settlement? All of this is speculation of course, but nothing would surprise me at this stage.’

Miss Roberts claims that she was trafficked by Epstein and convicted British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, and forced to have sex with the duke three times when she was a minor under US law. She says this amounted to rape, sexual assault and battery.

Her New York attorney David Boies said his team seeks to ‘depose between ten to 12 people’, and admitted this could include Andrew’s ex-wife Sarah, the Duchess of York, as well as his daughters Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie.

Lawyers for the Queen’s second son said that Andrew ‘hereby demands a trial by jury on all causes of action asserted in the complaint’ because he denies ‘any and all wrongdoing’. Experts say it further confirms why Her Majesty ‘swiftly and ruthlessly’ forced Andrew to step down from his remaining royal patronages and demanded he fight the case as a ‘private citizen’.

Mr Stephens went on: ‘The reason we think he's got to settle is because of the timing. Essentially this case is going to take up the rest of this year and if it takes up the rest of this year, that’s the whole of his mother’s Platinum Jubilee. 

Prince Andrew's legal team has filed legal papers in which the Royal denied all of Virginia Roberts' sex abuse allegations as he prepares for a bitter US court battle (Pictured: Andrew and ex wife Sarah Duchess Of York leaving Royal Lodge on January 22)

The Queen seen leaving Wood Farm in Sandringham, Norfolk this morning after Andrew demanded a 'trial by jury'

Experts predict a trial will cause untold damage to the Queen in her Platinum Jubilee year

Prince Andrew, Virginia Roberts, aged 17, and Ghislaine Maxwell at Ghislaine Maxwell's townhouse in London, Britain on March 13, 2001. Roberts, who is referred to in case documents by her married name Virginia Giuffre, filed a civil suit against Prince Andrew in August 2021, in which she formally accused the Royal of sexual abuse while she was being trafficked by billionaire paedophile Jeffrey Epstein

‘The only thing he could have done to stop this getting worse is to have pulled the case and stopped it in some way so there was no alternative news. This is going to be crippling if he really is dead set on running this to a trial.’

He continued: ‘I can’t conceive that the Royal Family will allow him to run this case and overshadow the Platinum Jubilee. It’s going to spark a debate about the relevancy and appropriateness of the Royal Family. The more detail that comes out the more there's going to be a problem for the wider royal family.’

Commenting on lurid details that may emerge from the trial, Mr Stephens said: ‘For example, questions will be asked of Virginia Giuffre about the prince’s body, any marks, his performance, what positions were adopted – every detail that is conceivable to ask will be put to Andrew.’

Royal expert and former MP Norman Baker said Buckingham Palace ‘won’t like’ what could come out at trial, warning: ‘This is going to be very damaging’.

‘This morning the Palace will be looking on in horror at what Prince Andrew is doing,’ he said, adding: ‘I suspect he won’t give evidence and will allow his lawyers to handle it for him. Clearly if he doesn’t give evidence while pushing for a trial, that will not go down well with any jury.’

In his official response to claims made against him by Miss Roberts five months ago, the duke issued 41 denials, rejecting all allegations of wrongdoing – but said a further 40 times that he ‘lacks sufficient information to admit or deny’ other claims.

He also submitted 11 defences calling for the case to be dismissed, including that Miss Roberts’ claims should be barred by ‘her own wrongful conduct’ and ‘unclean hands’. His decision to go ahead with the case puts him in contravention with the Royal Family.

Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg has said the Duke of York’s demand for a jury trial is him stating ‘bring it on’.

He told BBC Breakfast: ‘Those (a trial by jury) are certainly the words with which this page 11 defence ends but it was Virginia Giuffre who asked for a jury trial, demanded a jury trial, in her claim.

‘And so what you've really got here is Prince Andrew saying, “Bring it on. You want a jury trial? I want a jury trial. You want to bring these claims? Well, in that case, you have to prove everything that you’re saying, because I’m not going to admit to anything”’.

He added the case could still settle out of court but added that ‘nevertheless the prince is saying that he denies everything’.

The duke submitted 11 reasons why the case should be dismissed, including that Ms Giuffre’s claims are ‘barred by the doctrine of consent’ and by ‘her own wrongful conduct’.

Andrew had not officially responded to the 73-point civil claim as his lawyers almost immediately applied to a New York judge for it to be thrown out.

That was dismissed earlier this month, meaning he now needs to formally answer the accusations against him.

Andrew's eight admissions were limited to information already public, such as that he is a UK citizen and resides at Royal Lodge on the Windsor Estate.

He admits his walk with Epstein in Central Park in 2010 and staying at the paedophile’s Manhattan mansion on the same trip, both caught on camera. But in his rebuttal of Miss Roberts’ complaint, Andrew denies he ever sexually abused her and refuses to ‘admit or deny’ her assertions that she was a victim of Epstein.

He even – quite remarkably given photographic evidence of their relationship over the years – denies being a ‘close friend’ of Epstein’s girlfriend Maxwell.

Andrew’s legal team also reject Miss Roberts’ accusation that he has refused to co-operate with US authorities in their investigation of Epstein and his co-conspirators, despite officials claiming he has done just that.

Andrew makes clear he continues to dispute Miss Roberts is resident in the state of Colorado, which allows her to bring the case in the US.

Now a 38-year-old mother-of-three, she lives in Perth, Australia, and it is understood Andrew’s legal team still intend to pursue this in a bid to get the case thrown out. 

Waving: Andrew behind Jeffrey Epstein's front door in New York in December 2010 The  admits his walk with Epstein in Central Park in 2010 and staying at the paedophile's Manhattan mansion on the same trip, both caught on camera. But in his rebuttal of Miss Roberts' complaint, Andrew denies he ever sexually abused her and refuses to 'admit or deny' her assertions that she was a victim of Epstein.

Over 15 pages of court documents filed at New York's southern district court, Roberts, also referred to by her married name Giuffre (pictured in 2019 following a hearing in the Epstein case), claimed that the Duke of York 'committed sexual assault and battery' against her while she was aged just 17, requesting that a judge award 'punitive damages' for the 'physical and psychological' injuries she suffered

Regarding associations with Epstein, the royal admits he met him ‘in or around 1999’ but rejects that Maxwell was a ‘close friend’ and claims he lacks sufficient information to deny or confirm they were photographed ‘at numerous social events together’.

He says he cannot admit or deny flight logs put him on Epstein’s private jet or that he visited his private island. He confirms Epstein and Maxwell attended his 40th birthday party in 2000 – but denies throwing Maxwell a birthday party at the Sandringham estate that year.

Andrew says he ‘lacks sufficient evidence to confirm or deny’ if photographic evidence of his alleged meeting with Giuffre even ‘exists’.

Friends of his had suggested the infamous picture could have been doctored. He also claims he has insufficient information to know if he sent emails to Maxwell saying he had ‘some specific questions to ask you about Virginia Roberts’ in 2015.

His submission concludes with additional defence claims saying the case should be dismissed for reasons including: Miss Roberts signed away a right to sue in a legal agreement with Epstein, and accusations she also helped to procure victims of Epstein amounted to ‘wrongful conduct and the doctrine of unclean hands’. It adds: ‘Prince Andrew hereby demands a trial by jury on all causes of action asserted in the Complaint’.

The Duke of York's official rebuttal comes after a motion to dismiss the case on a legal technicality at the beginning of January was denied, and could see Prince Andrew himself take the stand in New York to argue his case in front of jurors.

Legal experts had predicted Andrew would seek a settlement after the Queen stripped him of his military roles, widely seen as the monarchy distancing itself from any potentially damaging developments.

But Andrew has taken the dramatic decision to face his accuser in court and become the first member of the modern royal family to submit to being cross examined over serious allegations.

Roberts, who is referred to in case documents by her married name Virginia Giuffre, filed a civil suit against Prince Andrew in August 2021, in which she formally accused the Royal of sexual abuse while she was being trafficked by billionaire paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Over 15 pages of court documents filed at New York's southern district court, Giuffre claimed that the Duke of York 'committed sexual assault and battery' against her while she was aged just 17, requesting that a judge award 'punitive damages' for the 'physical and psychological' injuries she suffered.

Prince Andrew has always vehemently denied all charges.

Boies went on to say his client and legal team were anticipating 'confronting' the royal about his 'denials'.

'We look forward to confronting Prince Andrew with his denials and attempts to blame Ms Giuffre for her own abuse at his deposition and at trial.'

Giuffre asserted that she met Andrew while she travelled frequently with Epstein between 2000 and 2002, when her lawyers maintain she was 'on call for Epstein for sexual purposes' and was 'lent out to other powerful men,' including Andrew.   

She accuses Andrew of sexually abusing her at the London home of Maxwell, at Epstein's New York mansion and Epstein's private island, Little St James. 

Her lawsuit said she still suffers significant emotional and psychological distress and harm. 

Epstein, 66, took his own life in August 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

But there is widespread speculation that he was murdered while in custody to prevent him from compromising powerful individuals in the US and abroad thought to be associated with him. 

Prince Andrew has responded to sex assault claims by Virginia Giuffre-Roberts in a new court document. Virginia alleges she was forced to have sex with the royal three times when she was aged 17 by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The first page of the document shows Andrew's official denial of Giuffre's claim.

Andrew's attorneys had unsuccessfully argued that Giuffre's case should have been thrown out because of a newly-unsealed $500,000 settlement with Jeffrey Epstein (pictured). Brettler argued the settlement protected Andrew because it contained a clause in which Giuffre agreed not to take legal action against 'potential defendants'. But Judge Kaplan denied Andrew's motion to have the case dismissed 'in all respects'

Prince Andrew's official rebuttal of Giuffre's claims comes just weeks after The Queen stripped him of his honorary titles, meaning he can no longer be referred to as 'His Royal Highness' in any capacity.

Andrew, who remains Duke of York, also loses his military titles and royal patronages 'with the Queen's approval and agreement', Buckingham Palace said in a terse statement that brought his 61 years as a senior royal to a shock end. 

The Queen's decision made on January 13 followed the day after Andrew's motion to have the case against him dismissed on a legal technicality was unequivocally thrown out by a US judge. 

Judge Lewis Kaplan sensationally dismissed an application from the Duke of York's lawyers to have the case shut down - freeing Ms Giuffre to pursue her high-profile case in a US court later this year. 

Andrew's attorneys had unsuccessfully argued that her case should have been thrown out because of a newly-unsealed $500,000 settlement with Jeffrey Epstein.

Brettler argued the settlement protected Andrew because it contained a clause in which Giuffre agreed not to take legal action against 'potential defendants'. 

But Judge Kaplan said the court was not able to consider the duke's efforts to cast doubt on Giuffre's claims or whether he was covered by the settlement agreement, suggesting these were issues for a trial.

He said: 'The 2009 agreement cannot be said to demonstrate, clearly and unambiguously, the parties intended the instrument ''directly'', ''primarily'', or ''substantially'', to benefit Prince Andrew.

'The defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint or for a more definite statement is denied in all respects.'

Earlier this month, sources close to the Duke confirmed that he was selling his luxurious chalet in the exclusive Swiss ski resort of Verbier after a mystery buyer agreed to take it off his hands.

Andrew was only able to sell the residence, called Chalet Helora, after settling a £6.6million debt to French socialite Isabelle de Rouvre, 74, who sold it to him and Sarah Ferguson in 2014 also for £18million. 

The deal led to speculation that he would use the money to pay his rapidly expanding legal bills as he prepares to battle the lawsuit of Giuffre.

But Spencer Kuvin, who represented the victims of Epstein, believes the sale could actually be designed to prevent Giuffre from seizing the Duke's assets.

The lawyer told the Mirror: 'If Virginia gets a judgment against Andrew, if this went all the way through to trial and she received a financial judgment in her favour, she could execute on any properties he has, the most likely being his ski chalet.

'If Andrew had properties in any companion country that would abide by such jurisdiction of the US, she can execute on those properties.'

He added: 'If the Queen has transferred any property to him, anywhere throughout the entire world, they could try and execute on that property if successful in foreign courts.'

Andrew agreed with Ms de Rouvre that the chalet would be paid for in instalments.

But Ms de Rouvre claimed the Yorks failed to make the final instalment of £5m, resulting in her launching legal action against them in the Swiss courts two years ago for the amount she was owed, plus interest, which came to a combined £6.6 million.

Under Swiss law, he was prevented from selling the chalet until the matter had been resolved.

Now that Andrew has paid the final instalment and attached interest for the chalet, he is now expected to sell the property in a matter of weeks. 

Andrew was only able to sell the property (pictured above), called Chalet Helora, after settling a £6.6million debt to French socialite Isabelle de Rouvre, 74, who sold it to him and Sarah Ferguson in 2014 also for £18million