A SETTLEMENT between convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and the woman suing Prince Andrew for sexual assault has been described as "irrelevant tot the case" against the royal.
The 2009 settlement agreement was reached between Virginia Giuffre, also known as Virginia Roberts, and Epstein, Andrew’s former friend, who died in a New York jail in 2019.
The 12-page document which was unsealed and made public by a New York court on Monday afternoon revealed the terms of a US$500,000 (£370,000) payout from Epstein to Giuffre.
Prince Andrew's lawyer believes that the document will stop the civil sex lawsuit against the royal.
READ MORE: 'Quit honorary military roles or risk staining their history', Prince Andrew told
The document details Giuffre agreed to “release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge” Epstein and “any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant” but does not include the prince by name.
The document continues: “It is further agreed that this Settlement Agreement represents a final resolution of a disputed claim and is intended to avoid litigation.
“This settlement agreement shall not be construed to be an admission of liability or fault by any party.
“The parties further confirm and acknowledge that this Settlement Agreement is being entered into without any duress or undue influence, and that they have had a full and complete opportunity to discuss the terms of the Settlement Agreement with their own attorneys.”
The settlement relates to a Florida state case to which the prince was not a party.
Giuffre’s lawyer David Boies believes the settlement is “irrelevant to the case against Prince Andrew”.
READ MORE: Prince Andrew asked to prove he can't sweat by Virginia Giuffre's lawyers
Andrew B Brettler, who represents Andrew, has argued that Giuffre, who is suing the Queen’s son for alleged sexual assault, had entered into a “settlement agreement” that would end her lawsuit.
He previously told a New York hearing the agreement “releases Prince Andrew and others from any purported liability arising from the claims Ms Giuffre asserted against Prince Andrew here”.
US District Judge Lewis A Kaplan, who is presiding over the civil case, is due to hold a video teleconference on Tuesday when a request by the duke’s legal team to dismiss the case will be heard.
Giuffre is suing the Queen’s son for allegedly sexually assaulting her when she was a teenager.
READ MORE: Judge slaps down attempt to halt Prince Andrew's sexual assault case
She is seeking unspecified damages, but there is speculation the sum could be in the millions of dollars.
She claims she was trafficked by disgraced financier Epstein to have sex with Andrew when she was aged 17 and a minor under US law.
Andrew has denied all the allegations.
Judge Kaplan last week denied a motion from Andrew’s lawyers to halt the civil proceedings while the issue of where Giuffre lives is dealt with.
Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s former girlfriend and Andrew’s friend, faces the rest of her life in jail after she was convicted last week of helping to procure teenage girls for the disgraced financier to sexually abuse.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel