Prince Andrew is at loggerheads with US prosecutors because they want a face-to-face interview about Jeffrey Epstein whereas the Duke wants to provide evidence in writing, royal experts believe.
Andrew is embroiled in an extraordinary public spat with US investigators who claim he has failed to co-operate with the Epstein probe – despite Andrew’s insistence that he has made three offers to help.
The BBC’s royal editor Nicholas Witchell said today that the discrepancy may lie in the nature of Andrew’s offer, with the Duke proposing to give written evidence but unwilling to face ‘unlimited’ verbal questions.
The prince’s lawyers said yesterday that Andrew was offering to provide a ‘witness statement’ while U.S. attorney Geoffrey Berman made it clear he was seeking an ‘interview’.
Andrew’s last verbal interview on the subject – his BBC Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis – was widely seen as a disaster and led to his resignation from public life just days later.
Another royal editor, Russell Myers, told Sky News this morning that ‘if you were Prince Andrew’s advisers, you would be keeping him away from that’.
The US Department of Justice has submitted a formal request to interview Andrew, although Donald Trump’s Attorney General William Barr said last night that extradition was not on the table.
Andrew spoke to the BBC’s Emily Maitlis for a Newsnight interview in November last year – an appearance which was widely labelled a disaster
Andrew is pictured waving from the door of Epstein’s mansion in footage which emerged last year. The prince denies having known about or suspected Epstein’s crimes
Speaking this morning, Witchell told the BBC that Andrew’s ‘specialist’ lawyers would be ‘attempting to control the process’ by ‘limiting the scope’ of the US investigation.
‘I think we may reasonably assume that the US attorney wants a face to face meeting with Andrew here in the UK, in which he could ask him face to face an unlimited array of questions,’ he said.
‘Well now, we only have to think back to the Newsnight interview to see what happens when Andrew faces unlimited, untrammelled questions.
‘So I think it is reasonable to suppose that his specialist British lawyers are attempting to control the process. They may also be insisting – please send your questions in writing and we will respond.’
Andrew resigned from ‘public duties’ in the wake of the Newsnight interview last November, in which he denied any wrongdoing but defended his friendship with Epstein as ‘seriously beneficial’.
The prince was criticised for failing to show any empathy towards Epstein’s victims, and many of his explanations attracted more mockery than sympathy.
In a subsequent statement he said he ‘regretted my ill-judged association with Jeffrey Epstein’ and ‘deeply sympathised with everyone who has been affected’.
‘Of course, I am willing to help any appropriate law enforcement agency with their investigations, if required,’ he said.
Russell Myers, the royal editor of the Daily Mirror, said US authorities wanted Andrew to give an ‘interview under oath’ in which he could be questioned further.
‘If you were Prince Andrew’s advisers, you would be keeping him away from that because we’ve all see the cataclysmic interview he gave on BBC Newsnight,’ he said.
Andrew says he never witnessed or suspected Epstein’s crimes, and the prince’s camp says he is not a ‘target’ of the US probe.
The Duke’s lawyers yesterday hit back at claims that Andrew had offered ‘zero co-operation’, accusing US investigators of ‘seeking publicity’ and breaching confidentiality.
But prosecutors in New York retorted by claiming that Andrew has ‘repeatedly declined our request to schedule such an interview’ and casting doubt on whether the Duke is ‘serious’ about offering help.
Today a lawyer for Epstein’s victims said Andrew had ‘very little credibility’ and urged him to ‘take the oath and just tell the truth’ about his relationship with the late paedophile.
Andrew is photographed with the disgraced Epstein in New York’s Central Park in 2010
Manhattan-based federal prosecutor Geoffrey Berman said on Monday that Andrew had ‘yet again sought to falsely portray himself to the public as eager and willing to co-operate’.
‘If Prince Andrew is, in fact, serious about cooperating with the ongoing federal investigation, our doors remain open, and we await word of when we should expect him.’
In an explosive letter, Andrew’s legal team had given an account of their dealings with the US Department of Justice, claiming he has offered to be a witness three times this year.
Andrew’s lawyers at legal firm Blackfords had said he is ‘being treated by a lower standard than might reasonably be expected for any other citizen’.
The 60-year-old royal’s team also said that ‘breaches of confidentiality’ by the DoJ have given the world an ‘entirely misleading account of our discussions with them’.
Full statement from U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman in response to lawyers representing Prince Andrew
Geoffrey S Berman, said Andrew has ‘repeatedly declined our request to schedule such an interview’
Today, Prince Andrew yet again sought to falsely portray himself to the public as eager and willing to cooperate with an ongoing federal criminal investigation into sex trafficking and related offenses committed by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates, even though the Prince has not given an interview to federal authorities, has repeatedly declined our request to schedule such an interview, and nearly four months ago informed us unequivocally – through the very same counsel who issued today’s release – that he would not come in for such an interview.
If Prince Andrew is, in fact, serious about cooperating with the ongoing federal investigation, our doors remain open, and we await word of when we should expect him.
Among the allegations raised in the document by the Duke’s lawyers were that:
- The Department of Justice had been ‘breaching their own confidentiality rules’;
- The DoJ had falsely claimed that the Duke has ‘offered zero co-operation’;
- The DoJ were more interested in ‘seeking publicity rather than accepting the assistance proffered’;
- An attempt by the DOJ to seek mutual legal assistance from the Home Office would be ‘disappointing’.
They said the DoJ has been ‘investigating Mr Epstein and other targets for more than 16 years, yet the first time they requested the Duke’s help was on January 2, 2020’.
But U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said the prince ‘through the very same counsel who issued today’s release’ told officials ‘he would not come in for such an interview’.
U.S. Attorney General William Barr said on Monday there were no plans to extradite Prince Andrew to the United States for questioning.
Asked during a Fox News interview whether the United States has officially asked Britain to hand over Prince Andrew, Barr said: ‘I don’t think it’s a question of handing him over. I think it’s just a question of having him provide some evidence. Asked if Prince Andrew would be extradited, Barr said, ‘no.’
Reacting to the release of the prince’s letter, royal expert Phil Dampier tweeted: ‘US officials say Prince Andrew has offered ‘zero co-operation.’ Andrew’s people say he has offered three times this year to be a witness. Who’s telling the truth?’
There has been some confusion over what the US is requesting against what Andrew is offering – with the Duke’s lawyers saying he has offered to provide a witness statement, but the US prosecutors said to be hoping to question him under oath.
In Andrew’s statement, the eighth-in-line-to-the-throne’s team at London-based lawyers added that the DoJ ‘reacted to the first two offers by breaching their own confidentiality rules and claiming that the Duke has offered zero co-operation’.
They continued by saying of the DoJ: ‘In doing so, they are perhaps seeking publicity rather than accepting the assistance proffered.’
In the Duke’s statement, issued shortly after 3.30pm GMT, the firm of lawyers said Andrew had offered to assist the DoJ three times this year and the authority first requested his help on January 2.
They said: ‘Importantly, the DoJ advised us that the duke is not and has never been a ‘target’ of their criminal investigations into Epstein and that they sought his confidential, voluntary co-operation.
‘In the course of these discussions, we asked the DoJ to confirm that our co-operation and any interview arrangements would remain confidential, in accordance with the ordinary rules that apply to voluntary co-operation with the DoJ. We were given an unequivocal assurance that our discussions and the interview process would remain confidential.
‘The Duke of York has on at least three occasions this year offered his assistance as a witness to the DOJ. Unfortunately, the DOJ has reacted to the first two offers by breaching their own confidentiality rules and claiming that the Duke has offered zero co-operation. In doing so, they are perhaps seeking publicity rather than accepting the assistance proffered. ‘
The statement added that an attempt by the DOJ to seek mutual legal assistance from the Home Office would be ‘disappointing’.
The statement said: ‘Any pursuit of an application for mutual legal assistance would be disappointing, since the Duke of York is not a target of the DOJ investigation and has recently repeated his willingness to provide a witness statement.
‘It is hoped that this third offer has not been the cause of the most recent leak about the Duke of York.
‘We do not intend to make any further public statement at this time as we wish to respect the rules of confidentiality under both English law and the US guidelines.’
It follows the DoJ filing a ‘mutual legal assistance’ (MLA) request for help to the Home Office, something used only in criminal cases under a legal treaty with the UK.
Andrew has always categorically denied any wrongdoing over his relationship with billionaire pedophile Epstein.
But the request from US officials means he could be forced to appear in a UK court as a witness in the case within months.
US officials have already previously claimed that Andrew has refused to co-operate with their requests to be questioned over Epstein and their investigation into his sex trafficking network.
Submitting an MLA is an audacious move to try to force him to answer questions.
On Sunday, the Mail was told that the duke’s legal team was ‘at the end of its tether’ and had ‘tried to play a straight bat’ with US officials, only to be greeted by leaks and innuendo.
A source close to the duke’s legal team told the Mail yesterday: ‘Legal discussions with the Department of Justice are subject to strict confidentiality rules, as set out in their own guidelines.
‘We have chosen to abide by both the letter and the spirit of these rules, which is why we have made no comment about anything related to the Department of Justice during the course of this year. We believe in playing a straight bat.’
Andrew is yet to speak to prosecutors in the US despite pledging in his disastrous Newsnight interview in November last year that he would co-operate.
The Department of Justice’s request for ‘mutual legal assistance’ from the Home Office effectively bypasses a request to Buckingham Palace.
The U.S. has no plans to have Prince Andrew extradited to force him to co-operate with the Jeffrey Epstein probe, Attorney General William Barr (pictured) said last night
One of Epstein’s victims, Virginia Roberts, now Virginia Giuffre, alleges she had sex with the Duke of York three times when she was 17 at the behest of Epstein
Andrew and Virginia Roberts, aged 17, at Ghislaine Maxwell’s townhouse in London in 2001
Andrew has previously admitted to becoming friends with Epstein – a billionaire tycoon who was accused of using his wealth to prey on underage girls – in 1999, after being introduced to the financier through Ghislaine Maxwell.
His relationship with Epstein came under intense public scrutiny in 2010 when photos emerged of them together in New York when Epstein was already a registered sex offender.
It later emerged that Andrew had stayed at Epstein’s £57million mansion for four days. However, the Prince said he was visiting Epstein at the time to end their friendship.
One of Epstein’s victims, Virginia Roberts, alleges she had sex with the Duke three times when she was 17 at the behest of the paedophile. The prince emphatically denies the allegation.
The disgraced financier killed himself last August while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.
But his victims want justice against his alleged conspirators, including British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, 58 – the daughter of shamed media tycoon Robert Maxwell.
Lawyers for Miss Maxwell have previously said she denies any wrongdoing.
Andrew has categorically denied having any knowledge that Epstein was sexually abusing teenage girls.
Miss Roberts alleges she first had sex with Andrew in 2001 when she was 17 after being trafficked by Epstein.
She said she was flown on Epstein’s private jet to London to meet the duke and the pair were photographed together in Miss Maxwell’s Belgravia home.
During his Newsnight interview, Andrew said he did not recall ever meeting Miss Roberts.
It was claimed last night that the MLA request, reported by The Sun, was formally lodged by the DoJ last month under the terms of a 1994 treaty.
If granted, US prosecutors could either ask the duke to voluntarily attend an interview or give a signed statement.
They could also ask Andrew to attend a magistrates’ court to provide oral or written evidence on oath. If he refused, the duke could be forced to attend in person.
But Andrew would have the right to ‘plead the 5th Amendment’ under the US Constitution and stay silent in order to not incriminate himself.
The MLA request is not the same as requesting Andrew’s extradition.
That process could be launched only if he was considered a formal suspect and the FBI believed there was enough evidence to charge him.
Home Office sources have confirmed the request had been made. No decision has yet been made by UK officials.
Meanwhile, Harry Dunn’s father said a deal involving Andrew and his son’s alleged killer is a ‘no brainer’.
Tim Dunn said his family need US suspect Anne Sacoolas back in the UK ‘so that we can get justice and closure for the loss of our son’.
Epstein is pictured with Ghislaine Maxwell in New York in 2005. Lawyers for Miss Maxwell have previously said she denies any wrongdoing
The teenager’s father also claimed that during a meeting with the Foreign Secretary in January, Dominic Raab said ‘if we threaten the US, look at the size of them compared to the size of us’, while discussing the response to the US’s refusal to extradite Sacoolas.
The Dunn family joined forces with alleged victims of Epstein earlier this year to put pressure on Sacoolas and the Duke of York to ‘co-operate with law enforcement’.
In a joint press conference in New York in February, Lisa Bloom, the lawyer representing six of Epstein’s alleged victims, said the ‘parallels between the two cases are eerie’ and involved ‘everyday teenagers’ who were ‘victimized’.
Sacoolas 42, allegedly killed 19-year-old Harry when his motorbike crashed into a car outside a US military base in Northamptonshire in August last year.
Andrew (second left) has said he became friends with Jeffrey Epstein (right) in 1999, after being introduced to him through Ghislaine Maxwell. Pictured: Melania Trump, Andrew, Epstein’s friend Gwendolyn Beck and Epstein at a party at the Mar-a-Lago in Florida in 2000
She claimed diplomatic immunity following the crash and was able to return to the US, sparking an international controversy.
She was charged with causing death by dangerous driving in December, but an extradition request submitted by the Home Office was refused the following month – a decision described by the US State Department as ‘final’.
Commenting on the reported MLA request, Tim Dunn said: ‘This is a no brainer to me. No one is above the law no matter who you are.
‘Andrew is clearly wanted over in the US to help achieve justice for the victims of Epstein. We need Mrs Sacoolas back here so that we can get justice and closure for the loss of our son.’
Now Prince Andrew is fighting fire with fire… but at what price to the monarchy? Amid an unprecedented war of words between the Duke of York and prosecutors in the US, RICHARD KAY gives his discomfiting verdict
No one has ever doubted his bravery. As a helicopter decoy pilot in the Falklands War, he put his life on the line luring Argentine missiles away from British ships.
So Prince Andrew’s problem was never about courage but rather his foolishness.
And amid the barrage of allegations over his involvement with the billionaire American paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, the critical question has been whether he is criminally stupid or stupidly criminal.
For the first time since that ill-judged Newsnight interview that destroyed his reputation and did such damage to the Royal Family, the Duke of York has rediscovered the boldness he displayed as a young man in the South Atlantic almost 40 years ago.
The prince (pictured visiting the final day of the 161st Great Yorkshire Show in 2019) denied claims he had sex with Virginia Roberts
In challenging the veracity of America’s Department of Justice, which has accused him of refusing to cooperate with its investigation into Epstein’s sex-trafficking network, he is taking on the most powerful law agency in the world.
And in a further twist last night, U.S. authorities responded to the Prince’s intervention. In a statement, the Justice Department said Andrew had sought to ‘falsely portray’ himself as a willing participant in their inquiry and said he had ‘repeatedly declined’ to be interviewed.
Both sides are effectively accusing the other of lying.
Never before has a senior member of the Royal Family adopted such a robust, and potentially perilous, position.
The unedifying spectacle of the Queen’s second son being branded a liar is unprecedented.
But then, never before has a royal been mired in such a lurid and repugnant case, including the claim — which Andrew denies — that he had sex with one of Epstein’s underage victims.
Behind the polite legal etiquette of his lawyers’ statement is one blunt message to American prosecutors: you are lying.
For almost seven months Andrew has said virtually nothing, even while it became clear that his hopes of ever returning to public life were over as claim followed shocking claim.
But yesterday a leaked report revealed that the U.S. authorities had invoked the terms of a legal treaty with Britain in an attempt to question the Prince as a witness.
This was the straw that broke the camel’s back. For Andrew’s supporters — and there are some — his decision to get on the front foot has been widely welcomed.
His team took the view that the leak was the equivalent of ‘third strike and you’re out’. They believe the U.S. Department of Justice has been playing fast and loose with the Prince for months.
In their hard-hitting statement, Blackfords, the Prince’s lawyers, flatly denied claims made in January by Geoffrey Berman, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, that there had been ‘zero cooperation’ by the Duke.
Prince Andrew used the ‘no-sweat’ suggestion to dismiss the idea that it was him dancing in Tramp nightclub with the then 17-year-old Virginia Roberts (pictured right), whose claim they had sex three times he unequivocally denies
Six weeks later, Berman made a further public statement claiming Andrew had ‘completely shut the door’. This, too, was denied in the strongest possible terms as ‘inaccurate’.
Then came the disclosure that the Department had filed a ‘mutual legal assistance’ application to the Home Office — the third strike.
In a powerful denunciation of the U.S. tactics, Blackfords shrugged off traditional British legal reserve to accuse the Department of Justice of breaching ‘its own rules of confidentiality’.
It pointed out that the Department had been ‘actively investigating’ Epstein for more than 16 years, yet the first time it asked for the Duke of York’s cooperation was on January 2 this year.
Crucially, it added one more vital detail, stating that: ‘The DOJ advised us that the Duke is not and never has been a ‘target’ of their criminal investigation into Epstein and that they sought his confidential, voluntary cooperation’.
I understand that following the first contact from the Americans in January, Andrew’s team immediately prepared a response. This was delivered some 12 to 14 days later and indicated that the Duke was ‘absolutely prepared to cooperate’ with the investigators.
Right from the outset, I am told, Andrew’s attitude was not to shrink from the challenge but to make it clear he would be available. Instead of Geoffrey Berman responding, his interventions later that month and again in March were ‘a bolt from the blue’.
Many around the Prince believe the sudden focus on him after his disastrous Newsnight interview last November — in which he illustrated a singular lack of remorse over his friendship with Epstein or concern for his victims — was a means of distracting from the original failings of the investigation. Andrew, they believe, effectively became a lightning-rod.
In all, his team offered his assistance to the Department of Justice on three separate occasions. It is understood that the mechanics of how he would help was the subject of the most recent communication.
Among the options was the Prince submitting a formal statement detailing what he knew of Epstein and what he may or may not have witnessed. Another possibility was that he would submit to questions, possibly by email.
It is the paper trail concerning these details which Andrew’s backers insist will prove that the claims of ‘zero cooperation’ are a demonstrable lie.
‘For too long it has been open season on the Duke of York. That is now over,’ says a supporter.
It may all be too late for Andrew’s royal reputation, his image for ever tarnished by the folie de grandeur of that Emily Maitlis interview. He has lost his role as a working royal, but is perhaps hoping that this aggressive new stance may just bring dividends.
While this has been a hellish time for Prince Andrew, it has probably been even worse for his mother. Andrew is the Queen’s favourite son and she has been deeply upset at the opprobrium he has faced.
Usually when the royal going gets tough, it is Andrew whom the Queen likes to have around her. But such has been the fallout from this unsavoury episode that she has reluctantly had to acknowledge there may be no way back.
His failure to demonstrate proper sympathy for the victims and his frankly idiotic explanations about being ‘unable to sweat’ exposed him to ridicule.
He used the ‘no-sweat’ suggestion to dismiss the idea that it was him dancing in Tramp nightclub with the then 17-year-old Virginia Roberts, whose claim they had sex three times he unequivocally denies.
In this legal battle he has now clearly decided to fight fire with fire. But the response from America shows that the trouble with fire is, it can explode in your face.