US judge rejects Prince Andrew’s petition to dismiss sex abuse case Sexual Assault News

The decision clears the way for Virginia Giuffre’s lawsuit against the Duke of York to proceed with a trial that could begin at the end of the year.


A US judge rejects Britain’s Prince Andrew’s request to dismiss Virginia Giuffre’s lawsuit Allegation that the Duke of York sexually abused her when she was 17 and was trafficked by the late financier Jeffrey Epstein.

In a decision released Wednesday, New York Judge Lewis Kaplan said in a ruling that the royal family’s motion to dismiss the complaint was “rejected on all counts”.


Manhattan’s Kaplan said it was too early to consider the prince’s suspicions of Giuffre’s allegations that he beat her and intentionally caused her emotional distress, although he would be allowed to do so at trial.

Lawyers for Andrew and Giuffre and Buckingham Palace did not immediately respond to requests for comment.


Andrew denies Giuffre’s allegations He forced her to have sex at his London home more than two decades ago Former Epstein Partner Ghislaine Maxwell, and abused her at two other Epstein properties.

The decision clears the way for Giuffre’s trial against Andrew to go ahead, which Kaplan has said could begin later this year.


While the prince has not been charged with criminal wrongdoing, his relationship with Epstein has damaged his reputation and cost him many royal duties.

Prince Andrew’s lawyers have said the lawsuit lacked specificity and was disqualified. her 2009 deal With Jeffrey Epstein’s attorney.

The lawsuit was settled as early as 10 years before Epstein committed suicide in a Manhattan jail while he awaited a sex-trafficking trial.


But Kaplan said the “chaotic” language in Giuffre and Epstein’s 2009 settlement suggested they may have reached a “middle ground” over whether Andrew or someone else in a similar position would be immune from future lawsuits.

Such settlements can limit plaintiffs from further litigation, even against third parties.

“We do not know what, if any, the parties have in mind,” Kaplan wrote. “There are at least two plausible interpretations of the critical language by the parties. Therefore, the agreement is ambiguous.”

.