What occurs subsequent to Andrew? Four good authorized minds supply their verdicts on how a possible prosecution and trial may play out
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s sensational arrest this week has raised myriad legal questions about the monarchy, the British constitution and how any prosecution or trial might play out. Here, four legal experts give their verdicts…
Andrew Tettenborn, professor of law at the University of Swansea
Professor Andrew Tettenborn
Ultimately, of course, the decision of whether to charge Mr Mountbatten-Windsor – and with what offences – rests with the Crown Prosecution Service. In a case of such magnitude, the paperwork will almost certainly end up on the desk of the Director of Public Prosecutions himself, Stephen Parkinson (a job formerly held by one Sir Keir Starmer).
If he is charged, Andrew will face a momentous decision – with no easy outcomes. Plead guilty and he would see his name blackened forever. Plead not guilty and he would endure a lengthy jury trial, with all the attendant publicity and embarrassment to the Royal Family that would entail.
One thing is for sure: he can expect no favours. The King has cast him out of the royal fold and, in the face of such intense public interest and even fury, the Establishment cannot be seen to bend the knee in any way. He will face justice like any common man – and rightly too.
Joseph Kotrie-Monson, executive director at Mary Monson Solicitors – a nationwide criminal defence specialist
Defence solicitor Joseph Kotrie-Monson
Andrew has been arrested on suspicion of ‘misconduct in public office’ – one of the areas in which our firm specialises. About 40-60 cases of the offence are recorded by the courts every year, and we work on perhaps a quarter of them.
It is a ‘common law’ offence – which means it’s grounded in case law, made by judges, rather than Parliamentary legislation.
As a result, although the maximum sentence is life imprisonment, it typically attracts far less severe sentencing than sexual offences – typically two or three years in prison for low-end cases. To me, it is interesting that Andrew is apparently being targeted for misconduct in public office instead of any sexual offences.
He has long denied these, but there is serious public concern at the appearance of the pictures and emails as a result of the release of the Epstein files, and because of the £12million payout the Royal Family made to Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre, of course without admitting liability.
This week’s arrest ensures that there is an appearance of Andrew being held to account – while, it seems, not being investigated for sexual offences.
In that sense, the damage to him, and by extension the Royal Family, has so far been contained.
Sir Vernon Bogdanor, professor of government at King’s College London and the author of The Monarchy and the Constitution
Professor Sir Vernon Bogdanor
The trial of ‘R. v Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’ would undoubtedly go down in the history books.
Yes, it would be a matter of great personal sorrow for the Royal Family – but it would also show the world how robust our constitution is. No one is above the law, not even the monarch’s own brother. I find that strangely heartening.
Mr Mountbatten-Windsor has not, of course, been charged, and he firmly protests his innocence. But he has undoubtedly caused huge reputational damage to the institution – and there are already calls for him to be removed from the line of succession (he is currently eighth in line to the throne).
That would require an Act of Parliament – not just in Britain but also in the 14 other realms of which the King is Head of State. This would take time, to say the least.
Above all, this crisis should not be used by republicans to attack the monarchy. A glance at events around the world shows that elected heads of state are by no means immune from corruption.
In France, Nicolas Sarkozy has been in prison, and many think that Jacques Chirac should have been.
The ex-president of South Korea has just been jailed for life for masterminding an insurrection, while many in America believe that Donald Trump has been corrupt. Does anyone really think we would be better governed by a retired politician?
Steven Barrett, barrister, author and broadcaster
Barrister and broadcaster Steven Barrett
The prospect of Andrew being tried in open court raises the very real possibility that King Charles may be called upon to give evidence.
This would present a fascinating and historic constitutional conundrum. Lawyers often say that no monarch can be called into the witness box in a court case, or indeed prosecuted for any crime, under the ancient principle of ‘sovereign immunity’.
But I would argue that, these days, there is a clear constitutional separation between ‘The Crown’ and the man or woman who wears the crown. (This distinction is made real in the annual State Opening of Parliament, when the Crown arrives in its own carriage 20 minutes before the King himself.)
I suspect that if it came to it, therefore, the King could testify in court if he chose to – although it seems impossible that he would ever be compelled to.
If anything marks out the House of Windsor from some of its historical predecessors, it is their pragmatism.
They have always had a keen ear for public opinion. If the King believed that testifying in court could somehow rescue the institution of the monarchy, I have little doubt that he would do it.
