Prince Andrew could be extradited to US to face allegations and is ‘not immune from prosecution’
PRINCE Andrew could be extradited to the US to face allegations of sex with a 17-year-old girl, top lawyers have said.
The royal, embroiled in scandal over his links to convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, is "not immune to prosecution",
Anna Rothwell, a criminal lawyer, told the newspaper that as the FBI are investigating the Epstein affair the duke was “vulnerable to extradition”.
She added: “He is not entitled to any form of immunity by virtue of his position as a member of the royal family."
And Ben Keith, a specialist extradition barrister at the London chambers Five St Andrew’s Hill, agreed and said: “Giving them [the US authorities] ammunition was extremely unwise.”
It comes hours after Prince Andrew gave an interview to BBC2 Newsnight's Emily Maitlis about his links to Jeffrey Epstein.
He denied he had sex with 17-year-old Virginia Roberts in 2001 after going to Tramp nightclub in London, claiming he was at a Pizza Express in Woking with his daughter Princess Beatrice.
Ms Roberts claims she had sex with the prince three times - which he strongly denies.
Gloria Allred, who represents some of Epstein's alleged victims, told Good Morning Britain: "Now it's time for him to take seriously the allegations.
"He should speak to the FBI. He should volunteer to do that."
He is not entitled to any form of immunity by virtue of his position as a member of the royal family.
Anna Rothwell
She also: "The right and honourable action for Prince Andrew to take now is for him to volunteer to be interviewed by the FBI and prosecutors for the southern district of New York.
“Prince Andrew has decided to enter the court of public opinion with this interview and people can decide whether to believe him or not."
The Palace declined to comment.
Viewers pointed out that the royal's comments should have been made under oath rather than on TV.
One said: "As much as we’re laughing at the Prince Andrew interview for the car crash it was, he should be answering these questions in court under oath!"
Another wrote: "Who advised Prince Andrew to do this interview? Surely he’s just better to give a statement under oath and be done with it. Until then it will never go away..."
For Prince Andrew to appear in an American court, the US authorities would have to start criminal proceedings.
They would then need an indictment issued by a grand jury before making a formal request to the UK for extradition.
WILLING TO SPEAK UNDER OATH?
Ms Maitlis asked Prince Andrew if he would be willing to give a statement under oath about the allegations against him.
He said: "Well I’m like everybody else and I will have to take all the legal advice that there was before I was to do that sort of thing.
"But if push came to shove and the legal advice was to do so, then I would be duty bound to do so."
Royal experts were also dumbstruck by the Prince's decision to appear on TV to discuss his relationship with his paedophile billionaire pal, who died in jail in August.
However, the Duke, 59, is believed to be unaware of the worldwide outrage sparked by his interview with Emily Maitlis, shown on BBC2 on Saturday night.
A previous Buckingham Palace statement said: "The Duke of York has been appalled by the recent reports of Jeffrey Epstein's alleged crimes.
"His Royal Highness deplores the exploitation of any human being and the suggestion he would condone, participate in or encourage any such behaviour is abhorrent."
Prince Andrew previously released a statement condemning his former pal, saying: "It is apparent to me since the suicide of Mr Epstein that there has been an immense amount of media speculation about so much in his life.
MOST READ IN NEWS
"This is particularly the case in relation to my former association or friendship with Mr Epstein. Therefore I am eager to clarify the facts to avoid further speculation.
"I met Mr Epstein in 1999. During the time I knew him, I saw him infrequently and probably no more than only once or twice a year. I have stayed in a number of his residences.
"At no stage during the limited time I spent with him did I see, witness or suspect any behaviour of the sort that subsequently led to his arrest and conviction."
