Prince Andrew has demanded a trial by jury in a civil sex case with Virginia Giuffre.
A legal document filed in the US shows he will not settle the case brought forward by Giuffre.
In the 11-page document, submitted to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, lawyers for Andrew sets out a series of defences “without assuming the burden of proof, and expressly denying any and all wrongdoing”.
“Prince Andrew hereby demands a trial by jury on all causes of action asserted in the Complaint," it reads.
It also states that the vase should be dismissed as Ms Giuffre is a permanent resident of Australia and by entering an agreeing with Jeffrey Epstein in 2009 she “waived the claims now asserted in the complaint”.
Lawyer David Boies, who is representing Virginia Giuffre in her lawsuit against Andrew, said his client and legal team were anticipating “confronting” the royal about his “denials”.
Mr Boies said: “Prince Andrew’s Answer continues his approach of denying any knowledge or information concerning the claims against him, and purporting to blame the victim of the abuse for somehow bringing it on herself.
“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.”
On January 12 a US judge dismissed a motion by Andrew’s legal team to have the lawsuit thrown out.
Virginia Giuffre is suing the Duke of York for alleged sexual assault when she was a teenager.
Ms Giuffre 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.
US judge Lewis Kaplan refused to dismiss the case after hearing cases from lawyers of both the Duke and Virginia Giuffre.
The Duke's legal team asked for the lawsuit in New York to be dismissed after Ms Giuffre waived her right to sue when she signed a $500,000 settlement agreement with Epstein.
He was stripped of royal titles and patronages by the Queen in January, meaning he can no longer use the title 'His Royal Highness'.
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