Prince Andrew's lawyers accuse US of misleading public over Epstein case

Lawyers for Prince Andrew have accused US prosecutors of misleading the public and breaching their own confidentiality rules in their handling of the investigation into the disgraced financier and child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

In a strongly worded, two-page statement, Blackfords, the London-based criminal law specialists, alleged that the US Department of Justice (DoJ) had effectively rejected offers of help volunteered by the prince.

The firm noted that the DoJ had “advised us that the duke is not and has never been a ‘target’ of their criminal investigations into Epstein” and that they had instead sought his confidential, voluntary co-operation.

Epstein was found dead in a New York prison cell last year where he was being held on charges of sex trafficking girls as young as 14. The prince had known the billionaire since 1999 and stayed at several of his residences.

The statement by Blackfords said: “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 cooperation. In doing so, they are perhaps seeking publicity rather than accepting the assistance proffered.

“On 27 January 2020, Mr Geoffrey S Berman, the United States attorney for the southern district of New York, chose to make a public statement about the duke. This led to worldwide media reports that there had been ‘a wall of silence’ and that there had been ‘zero co-operation’ by the duke. These statements were inaccurate, and they should not have been made.

“On 9 March 2020, Mr Berman made further public statements saying that the duke had ‘completely shut the door’ on cooperating with the US investigation and that they are now ‘considering’ further options. Again, the first statement was inaccurate and should not have been made.”

The statement added: “It is a matter of regret that the DoJ has seen fit to breach its own rules of confidentiality, not least as they are designed to encourage witness cooperation. Far from our client acting above the law, as has been implied by press briefings in the US, he is being treated by a lower standard than might reasonably be expected for any other citizen. Further, those same breaches of confidentiality by the DoJ have given the global media – and, therefore, the worldwide audience – an entirely misleading account of our discussions with them.

“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.”

Earlier the Home Office, the prince’s lawyers and the Foreign Office all declined to confirm on whether a mutual legal assistance request has been passed to UK officials.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “As a matter of long-standing policy and practice, we neither confirm nor deny the existence of mutual legal assistance requests.”

A Department of Justice spokesperson in the US said it “does not publicly comment on communications with foreign governments on investigative matters, including confirming or denying the very existence of such communications”.