this is bbc news, i'm ben brown at downing street where pressure is growing on the prime minister after he offered his apology over attending 3 drinks gathering in the garden at number 10 in may 2020. accused of �*deceit�* and �*betrayal�* by opposition leaders in the commons, the prime minister was under intense pressure to explain himself. i certainly wish that things had happened differently on the evening of may the 20th. and i apologise for all misjudgments that have been made, for which i take full responsibility. despite the apology, the prime minister was urged to resign, while tory backbenchers were called on to remove him.

when the whole country was locked down, he was hosting boozy parties in downing street. is he now going to do the decent thing and resign? do the decent thing and resign or will his tory mps be forced i to show him the door? and the high court ruled that the governments use of a vip lane sold millions of pounds of contracts for personal protective equipment was unlawful. and i'm alice baxter with this afternoon's other top stories on the bbc news channel... an admission from tennis star novak djokovic of mistakes on his paperwork to enter australia. an arrest has been made in the unsolved murders of three british family members and a french cyclist who were shot dead in the alps in 2012.

and the boss of the uk's biggest energy supplier warns that high energy bills will last for two years. i'm ben brown, live at downing street, where the prime minister has confirmed he was at a drinks party in the garden of number 10 during the first lockdown, and apologised for attending. breaking days of silence over the matter, borisjohnson said he believed the gathering was a work event and that, in hindsight, he should have sent everyone back inside. at the time, in may 2020, across the uk, meeting more than one person from outside your household was not allowed. but it's claimed more than 30 people attended the bring your own booze event.

labour leader keir starmer says he should "do the decent thing and resign". 0ur political correspondent, jonathan blake, reports on a dramatic pmqs. did you lie about the parties, prime minister? are you going to apologise? emerging to face the fury — borisjohnson left number 10 this morning and headed to the house of commons after revelations about a �*bring your own booze' gathering in the downing street garden during lockdown. what would he say, what could he say to answer the challenge from his opponents — was he there? — and ease the anger among his own mps. mr speaker, i want to apologise. i know that millions of people across this country have made extraordinary sacrifices over the last 18 months. i know the anguish they have been through, unable to mourn their relatives, unable to live their lives

as they want or to do the things they love. and i know the rage they feel with me and with the government i lead, when they think that in downing street itself the rules are not being properly followed by the people who make the rules. and though i cannot anticipate the conclusions of the current inquiry, i have learned enough to know that there were things we simply did not get right. and i must take responsibility. after the apology, an admission that he did attend. an explanation that he believed it was a work event, but also and an acceptance that others wouldn't see it that way. well, there we have it. after months of deceit and deception, the pathetic spectacle of a man who has run out of road _ his defence that he did not realise he was at a party...

is so ridiculous that it's actually offensive to the british public. he has finally been forced to admit what everyone knew — that when the whole country was locked down, he was hosting boozy parties in downing street. is he now going to do the decent thing and resign? i appreciate the point that he is making about the event i attended. i want to repeat that i thought it was a work event and i regret... i regret very much that we did not do things differently that evening. the labour leader accused the prime minister of changing his story, and worse. can't the prime minister see why the british public think he is lying through his teeth?

mr speaker, it is up to the right honourable gentleman to choose how he conducts himself in this place. and he is wrong, he is wrong. 0n the 20th of may 2020, downing st staff were invited to socially distanced drinks in the garden of number ten — "bring your own booze" said an email from a senior official. the event is one of several in 2020 being investigated. 0n the 15th of may, the prime minister and staff were pictured with cheese and wine in the downing street garden. borisjohnson said they were working at the time. a month later, on the 15th of december, when social mixing was banned indoors, a christmas quiz was held for number 10 staff with a photo showing borisjohnson taking part. and on the 18th of december, claims of a party inside downing street, which the prime minister's then press secretary was later seenjoking about in a mock news briefing. 0pposition parties are now

united in their call for borisjohnson to go. will the prime minister finally do the decent thing and resign? or will his tory mps be forced to show him the door? will the prime minister, - for the good of the country accept that the party is over| and decide to resign? some may be making light of the situation. but for borisjohnson it could hardly be more serious. jonathan blake, bbc news. 0ur political correspondent, nick eardley, is at central lobby and joins me live. we gather that after that historic prime minister's questions, the prime minister's questions, the prime minister's questions, the prime minister went to the commons tea room to talk to fellow tory mps to try and shore up support for him. yes, straight to the tearooms to try and figure out how that apology you

heard in the peace they had gone down with backbenchers. that is the key question now. 0pposition mps as you just heard are united in saying borisjohnson should resign. it's all down to how conservative mps react to what the prime minister had to say. speaking to a few mps in the last half an hour or so, i think there is a sense that maybe this didn't go down quite as well as mr johnson had hoped. yes, this was an opportunity to maybe buy some time, to wait for that report from the senior official looking into all of the allegations of parties to see what that report comes up with, but i was speaking to one senior tory in the last 20 minutes who are saying that the prime minister when he was in the tearooms looked a bit battered and bruised, that some of the umph we have got used to had gone. he did look a dejected figure.

there is a difference of opinion within the conservative party on this. there are some who think that this. there are some who think that this could be terminal for boris johnson if that report comes back with something critical or finds another event that happened or says that boris johnson another event that happened or says that borisjohnson didn't act sensibly in what he did. there are others who say they think the pm will ultimately get a clean bill of health and although mistakes were made he has now acknowledged them and hopefully they say that will give a chance to move on. but the idea that borisjohnson is out of the woods is not one i am hearing at all. i think there is still going to be a lot of pressure over the next few days or weeks leading up to that report being published. {shrew few days or weeks leading up to that report being published.— report being published. given the level of public _ report being published. given the level of public anger _ report being published. given the level of public anger in _ report being published. given the level of public anger in the - report being published. given the level of public anger in the news | level of public anger in the news about the party here in may 2020, i

suppose there are some mps who might decide they think borisjohnson is becoming a liability. what is the mechanism for them if they do want to try to get rid of him? the? mechanism for them if they do want to try to get rid of him?— to try to get rid of him? they could submit letters _ to try to get rid of him? they could submit letters of _ to try to get rid of him? they could submit letters of no _ to try to get rid of him? they could submit letters of no confidence. i l submit letters of no confidence. i have spoken to some tory mps in the last two days to say they have done that in the last month or so because they are unhappy with how the prime minister is performing. i should say there is always a health warning over these letters that quite often we hear stories about them and we can never quite verify them because nobody knows for sure what has been sent in. 0nly nobody knows for sure what has been sent in. only one man, the chair of the backbench committee of tory mps, is the only person who knows for sure how many of those letters have gone in. they would need around 5a which would trigger a confidence vote in the prime minister. all we at that stage? i'm not sure we are at that stage? i'm not sure we are at the moment. the fact the prime minister came and apologised, even

if he denied breaking rules and said this was still a work event, that probably has bought a bit of time. but what it has not done is given the comprehensive answers to those big questions we have been hearing and there are still tory mps who are wandering around parliament today, were still questioning borisjohnson plasma future. there are some who will say to you privately we think he has reached the end of the road and that he should because of what's happened over the last two weeks. the question is who will become prepared over the next few weeks to turn what they are saying privately into something public and the keeper will probably be now whether anything else comes out over the next few days and what that report from the senior civil servant and all of these allegations of parties, what that report comes up with.

let's get more on this story then. joining me live now is dr catherine haddon, a senior fellow at the think tank institute for government. that is the key question, this report from a senior civil servant into what happened at that downing street party and other alleged parties. it's really key isn't it? it's a difficult position for a civil servant to be in because what she says in her report could directly affect the future of the british prime minister. yes directly affect the future of the british prime minister. yes and he has effectively _ british prime minister. yes and he has effectively raised _ british prime minister. yes and he has effectively raised the - british prime minister. yes and he has effectively raised the stakes . has effectively raised the stakes even _ has effectively raised the stakes even further for her because this could _ even further for her because this could have — even further for her because this could have initially been a reporter 'ust could have initially been a reporter just set_ could have initially been a reporter just set out her understanding of the chain— just set out her understanding of the chain of events and facts but he has almost — the chain of events and facts but he has almost called upon her to rule whether_ has almost called upon her to rule whether or— has almost called upon her to rule whether or not you could define this as a work— whether or not you could define this as a work event and whether or not it breached — as a work event and whether or not it breached guidance but also to rule what — it breached guidance but also to rule what the prime minister himself

thought— rule what the prime minister himself thought when he went to the party or the garden _ thought when he went to the party or the garden on that fateful day. that is a really _ the garden on that fateful day. that is a really tricky position to put a serving _ is a really tricky position to put a serving civil— is a really tricky position to put a serving civil servant in, to ask them — serving civil servant in, to ask them effectively to write a report whose _ them effectively to write a report whose wording could bring down the prime _ whose wording could bring down the prime minister. and whose wording could bring down the prime minister.— prime minister. and he said it was technically a _ prime minister. and he said it was technically a work— prime minister. and he said it was technically a work event _ prime minister. and he said it was technically a work event and - prime minister. and he said it was technically a work event and with l technically a work event and with hindsight it was a mistake to go to it but it was technically a work event and he was there to thank members of the downing street staff. what did you make of his heartfelt apology today? it what did you make of his heartfelt apology today?— apology today? it was very much a defence that _ apology today? it was very much a defence that was _ apology today? it was very much a defence that was on _ apology today? it was very much a defence that was on his _ apology today? it was very much a defence that was on his own - apology today? it was very much a i defence that was on his own position because _ defence that was on his own position because this was about what he thought. — because this was about what he thought, his own interpretation when he went— thought, his own interpretation when he went there. we've got the e—mail so the _ he went there. we've got the e—mail so the public can judge for themselves whether or not they consider— themselves whether or not they consider something which talks about enjoying _ consider something which talks about enjoying the right —— nice weather and bringing your own booze could be defined _ and bringing your own booze could be defined as _ and bringing your own booze could be defined as a _ and bringing your own booze could be defined as a work event. so it's going _ defined as a work event. so it's going to — defined as a work event. so it's

going to be hard for so great to make _ going to be hard for so great to make a — going to be hard for so great to make a ruling which says yes this wasjust— make a ruling which says yes this wasjust meetings in the garden. if it turns _ wasjust meetings in the garden. if it turns out — wasjust meetings in the garden. if it turns out that there are pictures or if there — it turns out that there are pictures or if there are more eyewitness accounts — or if there are more eyewitness accounts of this that contradict what _ accounts of this that contradict what the — accounts of this that contradict what the prime minister says, that puts him _ what the prime minister says, that puts him in— what the prime minister says, that puts him in the hot water. it is not going _ puts him in the hot water. it is not going to _ puts him in the hot water. it is not going to be — puts him in the hot water. it is not going to be decided ultimately by this report, she is not going to sanction— this report, she is not going to sanction the prime minister. the wording — sanction the prime minister. the wording of— sanction the prime minister. the wording of it could be crucial. if there _ wording of it could be crucial. if there is— wording of it could be crucial. if there is something in the that is a hammer— there is something in the that is a hammer blow to the prime minister or the civil— hammer blow to the prime minister or the civil service involved in organising this event, that could be massively— organising this event, that could be massively politically damaging and a trigger— massively politically damaging and a trigger moment. but really this is about— trigger moment. but really this is about the — trigger moment. but really this is about the confidence to conservative mps have _ about the confidence to conservative mps have in the prime minister and what he _ mps have in the prime minister and what he is — mps have in the prime minister and what he is saying to them at the moment— what he is saying to them at the moment and that won't just be about his apology— moment and that won't just be about his apology and these parties, it will also — his apology and these parties, it will also be his arguments for why they should keep them in place because — they should keep them in place because this isn't an isolated incident _ because this isn't an isolated incident. it comes after a range of own goals — incident. it comes after a range of

own goals and mishandling, so he will also _ own goals and mishandling, so he will also be having to try to persuade them why they should stick by him _ persuade them why they should stick by him through this very difficult period _ by him through this very difficult period and keep him as their leader. there _ period and keep him as their leader. there is— period and keep him as their leader. there is also — period and keep him as their leader. there is also the question about whether he potentially misled mps in the house of commons because time and time again we heard him in december talking about all guidance being followed in downing street at all times. . �* , being followed in downing street at all times. ., �* , , , all times. that's right. this is another one _ all times. that's right. this is another one where _ all times. that's right. this is another one where he - all times. that's right. this is another one where he may i all times. that's right. this is i another one where he may come all times. that's right. this is - another one where he may come up with a _ another one where he may come up with a technical defence when he responded to one of these and said he was _ responded to one of these and said he was repeatedly assured they had been no _ he was repeatedly assured they had been no breaches of guidance. he was talking _ been no breaches of guidance. he was talking about the december 2020 christmas parties. we don't know what _ christmas parties. we don't know what the — christmas parties. we don't know what the report will say about those — what the report will say about those so _ what the report will say about those. so he may say that he didn't mislead _ those. so he may say that he didn't mislead knowingly. he may not even be called _ mislead knowingly. he may not even be called into question on this. also, _ be called into question on this. also, that _ be called into question on this. also, that is not one for sale agreed — also, that is not one for sale agreed to— also, that is not one for sale agreed to investigate. but as we

know— agreed to investigate. but as we know he — agreed to investigate. but as we know he has also had a tricky time of it with _ know he has also had a tricky time of it with the prime minister lately — of it with the prime minister lately. but really this comes down to some _ lately. but really this comes down to some overall leadership because the ministerial code is not about a watertight— the ministerial code is not about a watertight legal defence, it's about the ethical standards of this government and that is why public opinion— government and that is why public opinion in— government and that is why public opinion in the view of parliament is 'ust opinion in the view of parliament is just as _ opinion in the view of parliament is just as important as what anybody rules— just as important as what anybody rules in_ just as important as what anybody rules in terms of the specifics of what _ rules in terms of the specifics of what he — rules in terms of the specifics of what he did or didn't do.- rules in terms of the specifics of what he did or didn't do. there is also a question _ what he did or didn't do. there is also a question about _ what he did or didn't do. there is also a question about how- what he did or didn't do. there is also a question about how all- what he did or didn't do. there is| also a question about how all this isjudged in terms also a question about how all this is judged in terms of standards and government and we've had the whole row over the refurbishment of the downing street flat of course and now this allegation about various alleged parties and questions about who investigates all of these matters. it's quite a complex web isn't it? it matters. it's quite a complex web isn't it? , , , ., , isn't it? it is. this is really showing — isn't it? it is. this is really showing up _ isn't it? it is. this is really showing up what - isn't it? it is. this is really showing up what a - isn't it? it is. this is really showing up what a poor i isn't it? it is. this is really - showing up what a poor situation we are now— showing up what a poor situation we are now in _ showing up what a poor situation we are now in when it comes to our standards— are now in when it comes to our standards watchdogs and their ability— standards watchdogs and their ability to be independent. it shouldn't be for a serving civil

servants — shouldn't be for a serving civil servants to have the roll—on the future _ servants to have the roll—on the future career of a serving prime minister — future career of a serving prime minister it— future career of a serving prime minister. it shouldn't be for somebody like lord guides who is opposed — somebody like lord guides who is opposed to investigate the most senior— opposed to investigate the most senior people in government, that he has to— senior people in government, that he has to wait— senior people in government, that he has to wait for the prime minister to allow— has to wait for the prime minister to allow him to conduct an investigation. we need something that has— investigation. we need something that has a — investigation. we need something that has a statutory backing and independence and also as we saw with the electoral commission and the investigation into the prime minister— investigation into the prime minister plasma flat refurbishment, the need _ minister plasma flat refurbishment, the need to have the ability to get all of— the need to have the ability to get all of the — the need to have the ability to get all of the evidence is to be able to conduct _ all of the evidence is to be able to conduct these kind of investigations. sol conduct these kind of investigations. so i think we need to have _ investigations. so i think we need to have a — investigations. so i think we need to have a good hard look at how all of these _ to have a good hard look at how all of these things work and we need to see some _ of these things work and we need to see some really big changes. many thanks indeed _ see some really big changes. many thanks indeed for _ see some really big changes. many thanks indeed for your _ see some really big changes. ij�*ia�*iy thanks indeed for your thoughts and analysis. well, the revelations of parties and social gatherings at downing street and in other government departments during lockdown have enraged many people who stuck to the rules.

0ur correspondent luxmy gopal has been gauging the mood in leeds. may 2020. while that alleged party was happening at downing street, streets across yorkshire that were usually busy fell quiet as the government told people they could not leave home without a reasonable excuse. today, that discrepancy was not lost on shoppers in leeds. i could not go and see my husband — he was in hospital seriously ill with cancer and i couldn't go in, and it really hurts. all i could do was see him from outside the ward. i took him some clothe ing and it broke my heart. and you think people like him can get away with it. it is one rule for him and one rule for us. if he were to apologise would that be enough? no, because he has done too much of it. you don't take notice of him now. he just seems to do what he wants and that's it. bill was one of many people who missed loved ones�* funerals. it is not fair on the people

who stuck to the rules. i could not go two uncles' funerals because i was not allowed. you can't grieve unless you're there. it's not very good, is it? he should go now. would an apology from the prime minister be enough? i think so. for all he does, i still like boris. to be honest, we're all. going through hard things and if you could party and you got away with it — millions of other. people have done it, so... unfortunately, he has been caught and that is it. at the end of the day, _ i think the man has done a good job. you would vote for borisjohnson again in the next election? yeah. this is it, love, he says one thing and he does another. this is it. i have always voted for him. i won't vote for him again — never. hundreds of miles away from westminster, strong views on the number 10 party allegations and, for some, saying sorry just will not cut it. luxmy gopal, bbc news, leeds.

the high court has ruled the government's use of a so—called vip lane for the awarding of contracts to supply personal protective equipment during the pandemic was unlawful. campaigners brought the case arguing two companies were given lucrative deals because of their connections. 0ur correspondent, lucy manning, has been following the ruling: this is all about the enormous amounts of money the government spends in the first stage of the pandemic and things like masks and aprons and overalls for staff in hospitals on the front line. the bbc and others reported that some of that could not be used, some of it had failed safety tests and money was being spent that didn't necessarily have to be spent. the government was taken to the high court about this vip lane. what this meant was that if you had a company

that thought you could get masks and other equipment and if you knew a minister or an other equipment and if you knew a minister oran mp ora other equipment and if you knew a minister or an mp or a civil servant, they would put you on to essentially what was a fast—track lane and people said that that was unfair, that other companies didn't get the same chances. so to campaign groups and every doctor and the good low project took the government to the high court about this, about specific contracts that were given to two companies. the high court this morning decided that that vip lane was unlawful. they said that it had given earlier consideration to some companies, it was better resourced, it was able to respond to offers on the day that they arrived. and that was in breach of the law and it was unlawful. so that's not great for the government and certainly in court they were tales of how some of the equipment couldn't be used and we understand

that still some masks have not been able to be used in the nhs and other pieces of equipment. where it did come down in favour of the government, it said that even though these vip lanes should not have been used, the companies would still have got these contracts even if they had not gone —— gone down the vip route because they were offering so much in terms of volume of ppe equipment. but it's not a great result for the government and itagain i guess feeds into this idea that if you knew or if you are well connected to the government then you could get your offers scene quicker by those who are deciding on these multi—million pound deals. the prime minister will be hoping his apology today has been enough to buy him some time. he says we should

wait for the results of the enquiry into the alleged parties but he will also be waiting a little nervously to see how his fellow conservative mps reacted to his performance today and prime minister's questions in the commons and wondering perhaps how many of them may think they might be better off with another leader and another prime minister. more from me in downing street later on but now let's go back to the studio. the tennis star novak djokovic has admitted mistakes were made on his immigration forms for entering australia. he also said he'd made an error ofjudgement by agreeing to meet a journalist for an interview — after he knew he'd tested positive for covid—19. the serbian player is still waiting to hear if his visa will be withdrawn before he can defend his title at the australian open. from melbourne shaimaa khalil reports. hard at work in the hot australian sun. but, at the same time novak djokovic was on the tennis court training, he released

a statement on his social media accounts. the world number one had a lot to say about questions over the past few days. still in dispute is when djokovic knew he had covid—19. it is important, because an infection is the reason he was granted a vaccine exemption and allowed to travel to australia. today, the tennis star said he found out on december the 17th, hours after attending a tennis event with children in belgrade. but this conflicts with a sworn affidavit given to the australian courts that he tested positive for the virus a day earlier. crucially, he also admitted to giving false information, saying, "0n the issue of my travel declaration, this was submitted by my support team on my behalf, as i told immigration officials on my arrival, and my agent sincerely apologises for the administrative mistake. "

we are cutting into that report was because we want to bring you some breaking news. the duke of york, prince andrew, will face a civil six case trial after a us judge dismissed of motion by his legal team to have the lawsuit thrown out. this of course in relation to these ongoing accusations against prince andrew and his involvement with jeffrey epstein. is motion to dismiss the lawsuit has been denied in new york. they have written a decision denying prince andrew's motion to stop the lawsuit. that news coming in. it's a story we have been covering in huge detail here at

bbc news. this ongoing case involving jeffrey epstein and these accusations against prince andrew. so that news just coming into us here at bbc news that prince andrew will�*s motion to dismiss the lawsuit denied by thejudge in new york. he has written a 46 page decision denying the motion to dismiss the lawsuit. 0ur royal correspondent looks back now at the case. 50 lawsuit. our royal correspondent looks back now at the case. so what does he do — looks back now at the case. so what does he do now _ looks back now at the case. so what does he do now and _ looks back now at the case. so what does he do now and what _ looks back now at the case. so what does he do now and what does - looks back now at the case. so what does he do now and what does the l does he do now and what does the royal family do with him? after months during which andrew first tried to ignore the case and then avoid court papers being served on him and having finally appointed us lawyers to try to get the case dismissed, he finds himself facing some stark choices. is motion to get

the case dismissed having failed, andrew's options amounts to this. he can settle out of court. they would be no admission of liability but he would pay a substantial sum. he can default, ignore the court case and by default they would be a finding against him. finally, he could fight it out in court. he'd have to give a deposition in the roath, the rival stories would be tested, the matter would be decided in open court. lawyers who have been following the case say none of the options will be attractive to him.— case say none of the options will be attractive to him. andrew has got no aood attractive to him. andrew has got no good options — attractive to him. andrew has got no good options now. _ attractive to him. andrew has got no good options now. he _ attractive to him. andrew has got no good options now. he can't - attractive to him. andrew has got no good options now. he can't make . good options now. he can't make things— good options now. he can't make things better so essentially i think he is _ things better so essentially i think he is either going to have to engage in the _ he is either going to have to engage in the trial— he is either going to have to engage in the trial process or he is going to have _ in the trial process or he is going to have to— in the trial process or he is going to have to settle and that may well be his— to have to settle and that may well be his least worst option. then there is the — be his least worst option. then there is the question _ be his least worst option. then there is the question of - be his least worst option. then there is the question of his - be his least worst option. t�*ie'i there is the question of his future within the royal family. ten years ago at the time of the diamond

jubilee andrew was very much in evidence. much has happened in the years since. most of it in the case of andrew has been deeply embarrassing for the royal family. in his newsnight interview, where he said he could not remember meeting the 17—year—old, andrew was asked whether he felt he had damaged the queen and the royal family. j whether he felt he had damaged the queen and the royal family.- queen and the royal family. i don't believe it's been _ queen and the royal family. i don't believe it's been damaging - queen and the royal family. i don't believe it's been damaging to - queen and the royal family. i don't believe it's been damaging to the i believe it's been damaging to the queen— believe it's been damaging to the queen at— believe it's been damaging to the queen at all. it has to meet. if i was in _ queen at all. it has to meet. if i was in a — queen at all. it has to meet. if i was in a position to be able to answer— was in a position to be able to answer all— was in a position to be able to answer all of these questions in a way that— answer all of these questions in a way that gave sensible answers other than the _ way that gave sensible answers other than the ones i have given that gave closure, _ than the ones i have given that gave closure, i_ than the ones i have given that gave closure, i would love it but i'm afraid — closure, i would love it but i'm afraid i— closure, i would love it but i'm afraid i can't because i'm just as much _ afraid i can't because i'm just as much in — afraid i can't because i'm just as much in the _ afraid i can't because i'm just as much in the dark as many people. for all much in the dark as many people. all andrew's much in the dark as many people. fr?" all andrew's denials of wrongdoing might this be the time for him to withdraw entirely from public life? he has retained some positions, he is colonel of the grenadier guards for example. behind the scenes there is unease. the feeling that in this of all years, they are of the queen's platinumjubilee, it

of all years, they are of the queen's platinum jubilee, it would be preferable for his second son to recognise that as he said in that newsnight interview, he has let the side down and that he should therefore bow out gracefully and completely. a reminder there of the background of this case. we've had this breaking news that a judge in new york has rejected an attempt by queen elizabeth's son, prince andrew, to have a lawsuit accusing him of sexual assault, thrown out. it means the british prince will now face a civil trial in the united states. his accuser alleges that prince andrew's friends jeffrey epstein and ghislaine maxwell, r for six with powerful associates including the prince. an allegation that he has repeatedly denied. it

has now been confirmed that prince andrew will now face a civil trial in the united states. this following the decision by a judge in new york to reject an attempt by prince andrew to have a lawsuit accusing him of sexual assault thrown out. this of course all to do with this 2009 deal, prince andrew's accuses, that was made public during the course of this case. the alleged victim agreed on that deal not to say to anybody connected to jeffrey epstein who could be described as a potential defendant. that document we learnt recently disclosed by a new york court revealed the finance

you paid her $500,000 or £371,000 to end her claim. she is suing the duke of york in a civil case for allegedly sexually assaulting her 20 years ago when she was just a teenager. he has consistently denied the claims. the document was raised —— released ahead of that critical hearing that has taken place today in the civil case involving prince andrew and the interpretation of that settlement will form essential plank of the argument between the two sides. ajudge in new york has rejected that attempt by prince andrew to have the lawsuit accusing him of sexual assault thrown out. it now means that prince andrew will face a civil trial in the united states. his accuser alleges that prince andrew's friends, jeffrey epstein and ghislaine maxwell, lent her out the six was wealthy and

powerful associates including the prince, an allegation that he has strongly and repeatedly denied. 0utlining his reasons for denying the motion to dismiss, thejudge said an agreement at the civil settlement between jeffrey said an agreement at the civil settlement betweenjeffrey epstein and virginia giuffre could not be said to benefit him. in his ruling, he said the 2009 agreement cannot be said to demonstrate clearly and unambiguously the parties intended the instrument directly, primarily or substantially to benefit prince andrew. i am quoting directly from thisjudgment — the existence of the this judgment — the existence of the requisite attempt to benefit him or others comparable to him is an issue of fact that could not properly be decided on this motion, even if the defendant fell within the releasing

language, which itself is ambiguous. continuing to quotes, therefore the question of whether the release man which applies to prince andrew is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation on the equally important question of whether this defendant may invoke it. we will be getting more analysis on this, of course. but the top line, that the duke of york will be tried over allegations that he sexually assaulted virginia giuffre when she was underage after a us judge assaulted virginia giuffre when she was underage after a usjudge has ruled her civil lawsuit can proceed. so, prince andrew will face a civil trial in the united states. that judge in new york has decided against prince andrew's... and has

ruled that the civil lawsuit can proceed. 0f ruled that the civil lawsuit can proceed. of course, this is a huge blow for prince andrew, whose lawyer argued earlier this month that the case should be thrown out as mr giuffre had waived her right to pursue the duke by signing a confidential settlement with a disgraced financierjeffrey epstein. and the conclusion of his written ruling, judge kaplan said that for the foregoing reasons, the defendant 's to dismiss the complaint or for a more definite statement is denied in all respects given the court's limited task of ruling on this motion, nothing in this opinion or previously in those proceedings properly may be construed as indicating a view with respect to the truth of the charges or counter charges or as to the intention of the parties entering into the 2009 agreement. this year is a period of

celebration for the royal family as it marks the queen's platinum jubilee but the monarch and the senior royals facing the prospect of the duke's accuser giving a detailed account of her allegations in open court in new york this autumn now, the institution of the monarchy is likely to be, some are saying, damaged by ms giuffre's sexual assault case to be heard in new york and this is expected to make headlines right across the globe. somewhat also say that prince andrew's reputation has already been damaged by his friendship with epstein, a convicted sex offender, and he from public duties soon after his, some would say, disastrous 2019 new snout interview that failed to draw a line under his relationship with the disgraced financier. —— 2019 newsnight interview. miss

giuffre alleges he sexually assaulted her when she was a teenager. she is seeking unspecified damages but there is speculation that the sum could be in the millions of dollars. the breaking news again, the duke of york will be tried over allegations that he sexually assaulted virginia giuffre and she was underage after a us judge in new york has ruled that her civil lawsuit can be proceeded. in i'm nowjoined in the studio for more on all of this. this is obviously a devastating news for prince andrew and the royal family? it's that the use he would have wanted to because his attempt to stop the trial has failed. what will happen now is the try will go ahead, possibly in the autumn in new york, before that, there is a phase of discovering which both sides of lawyers will try to get as much information as they can from each other. this can be a difficult and embarrassing position for prince entry because he will have to face very detailed and personal questions

about these allegations. what could happen perhaps next, and possibly the next round of discussions will be about whether a deal will be stroke. prince andrew could be forced to give evidence. won't be extradited and such to america but could be forced to give evidence. it so you might want to stop this process by seeking an agreement which would possibly mean paying money to virginia giuffre and come up money to virginia giuffre and come up with some form of words which would allow the steel to be settled out of court. in would allow the steel to be settled out of court-— out of court. in front were not familiar with _ out of court. in front were not familiar with the _ out of court. in front were not familiar with the details - out of court. in front were not familiar with the details of. out of court. in front were not | familiar with the details of this case, just remind us what is being accused of happening some 20 years ago. there are three times in which ago. there are three times in which a virginia giuffre said she was assaulted by prince andrew in london, new york and also in the caribbean. and this is wrapped into the story aboutjeffrey epstein, the traffic and abuse are. she says she was trafficked by him and prince

andrew took advantage of her on those occasions, charges he strongly denies. this will be his chance to clear his name as well as her chance to prove her allegations. and it is now confirmed he will have to give testimony in open court in new york in a civil case. it ages testimony in open court in new york in a civil case. i— in a civil case. it yes and no. he will probably — in a civil case. it yes and no. he will probably not _ in a civil case. it yes and no. he will probably not want - in a civil case. it yes and no. he will probably not want that - in a civil case. it yes and no. he will probably not want that to i will probably not want that to happen. there is a way in which the court in new york can seek the high court in london's approval to require him to give testimony. it will be on oath. it cannot be directly done, it cannot be forced to go to america to give testimony but can be required to give evidence in london if the court in london approves that. the high court would have to go through that. but he is facing months and months of difficult headlines, uncomfortable questions and an attempt to try and clarify what really happened. and at the end of that road would be a trial and rest a civil trial, not a

criminal trial — in new york in the autumn. throughout all of this, prince andrew has consistently denied any wrongdoing, any involvement. have yet had any reaction from his households, from the palace on this latest ruling from the judge in new york? i latest ruling from the 'udge in new york? . , ., , , latest ruling from the 'udge in new york? . , ., i, ., york? i have seen on myself so far, i am york? i have seen on myself so far, i am sure — york? i have seen on myself so far, i am sure we _ york? i have seen on myself so far, i am sure we will— york? i have seen on myself so far, i am sure we will soon. _ york? i have seen on myself so far, i am sure we will soon. there - york? i have seen on myself so far, i am sure we will soon. there is - york? i have seen on myself so far, i am sure we will soon. there is the court case, and he has strongly rejected any claims of wrongdoing but the source of reputational damage as well and how bad this will look having lost the attempt to use the deal between epstein and virginia giuffre to stop this case continuing. having lost that, he now faces a long period of time in which he will face a very difficult questions. each time these stages of inquiry go ahead, there will be more discussions and a trial in new york,

were it to go ahead, will be a massive media occasion around the world. so i think the suggestion has been from some legal authorities that he will try and strike a deal and stop this process as soon as he can buy effectively coming to an arrangement, financial arrangements, to stop the case. he it’s to stop the case. he it's interesting, _ to stop the case. he it's interesting, because reading the wording ofjudge lewis kaplan's judgments, he says the fact the defendant has brought the matter before the court and a motion to dismiss the complaint is legally sufficient to of central importance, as is well—known to lawyers but perhaps not to the lay public, by making this motion placed upon the court there unyielding duty to assume, for the purpose of this motion, only the truth of all the plaintive's allegations and to draw in the plaintive's favour all inferences that reasonably may be drawn from those allegations. it as a consequence, the law prevents the court from considering at the state

of the proceedings of the defence and's efforts to cast doubt on the truth of ms giuffre's allegations, even those efforts will be admissible at trial. what you make of those words? in a admissible at trial. what you make of those words?— of those words? in a way, that is the le . al of those words? in a way, that is the legal summation _ of those words? in a way, that is the legal summation of - of those words? in a way, that is the legal summation of the - of those words? in a way, that is - the legal summation of the problems the legal summation of the problems the lawyers had in court last tuesday when this was discussed. at the judge didn't seem particularly sympathetic to the attempt to use the arrangements between virginia giuffre and jeffrey epstein in 2009, which prince andrew's lawyers hoped would preclude him from facing trial. i think this is way of saying none of that was covered, let's get on with the trial, on with the basis of these allegations and see what is the truth of it or not. i think will happen next is a long pause of trying to keep the case going from the side of virginia giuffre's lawyers, who will want to start

gathering evidence to establish more facts and pin down this case. at the same time, there may be a dual track where people are talking about possibly a negotiated settlement outside of actually going to court. i think the big question now will be, what this actually go to court? that will depend on what prince andrew's team can offer financially and watch virginia giuffre's side will accept terms of an apology and form of written words which both can agree to. form of written words which both can aaree to. . ~ form of written words which both can aaree to. ., ,, ,., form of written words which both can aaree to. ., ,, agree to. thank you, we will come back to you _ agree to. thank you, we will come back to you later _ agree to. thank you, we will come back to you later for _ agree to. thank you, we will come back to you later for more - agree to. thank you, we will come | back to you later for more analysis. we will remind viewers of the breaking years we have just had to and from reuters, that prince andrew, queen elizabeth's son, has failed in his bid to get a civil case which alleges he sexually assaulted virginia giuffre dismissed by a usjudge assaulted virginia giuffre dismissed by a us judge to. assaulted virginia giuffre dismissed by a usjudge to. ms giuffre is suing the prince, claiming he abused her when she wasjust 17. suing the prince, claiming he abused her when she was just 17. his lawyers say the case should be thrown out citing a 2009 deal that

she signed with the convicted sex offenderjeffrey epstein, but the new yorkjudge has ruled that the claimant could be heard. prince andrew has consistently denied the allegations. let's go live now to north london, where we can speak to a legal reporter with... what do you make of this ruling from this new yorkjudge?— yorkjudge? this is a hugely significant — yorkjudge? this is a hugely significant ruling, _ yorkjudge? this is a hugely significant ruling, in - yorkjudge? this is a hugely significant ruling, in my- yorkjudge? this is a hugely - significant ruling, in my opinion. i think prince andrew and his lawyers will be very very surprised by this news. i think they were fairly confident they would be able to get this lawsuit thrown out at a very early stage and they have failed to do that. what we have seen today is that this lawsuit will go ahead, that's the big takeaway from this, that's the big takeaway from this, that prince andrew and his lawyers wanted to use this 2009 settlement to try and get this lawsuit thrown

out on a technicality, that virginia giuffre had released all potential defendants for many lawsuit for the rest of time. the court has said that's not the right interpretation or that is not necessarily the right interpretation of a 2009 settlement and therefore that the case must go ahead. he is basically saying there is a case to answer here. here saying that he retracts prince andrew's lawyers' contention that there is only one way to read this 2009 settlement and that one way is that prince andrew is released from all liability. thejudge has said clearly in the sort of that there are at least two interpretations of that settlement and what he says is that settlement and what he says is that virginia giuffre's interpretation of that settlement, which is much narrower, is also a possible interpretation. so what he's saying is that we need to go to trial, we need to understand, we need to have the argument about exactly what the settlement means and that he is notjust going to

throw it out at this stage by acquiescing to prince andrew's argument that there is no argument here, the settlement releases prince andrew and it can't be sued by virginia giuffre. so, this is really significant, it lines up with my interpretation of the hearing we had last week, judge kaplan's views in the hearing were very sceptical, i thought, of prince andrew's arguments, so i'm not surprised this is what he's decided based on how he was approaching these arguments last week, but it is a very very significant. now we all move forward to the phase where we have discovery or disclosure of documents and evidence and i don't think prince andrew would ever have expected to be facing in order to hand over documents relating to this suit. i think it's really significant and an important day in terms ofjustice. break it down for us, i write out some of the wording of the judgment

from judge kaplan a little bit earlier, how would you translate those legalese into normal speak for us lehmann? was a fairly unequivocal in his language? i us lehmann? was a fairly unequivocal in his language?— in his language? i think so. it is important _ in his language? i think so. it is important to — in his language? i think so. it is important to note _ in his language? i think so. it is important to note that - in his language? i think so. it is important to note that he's - in his language? i think so. it is important to note that he's not| important to note that he's not being unequivocal in terms of deciding what the meaning of the 2009 settlement is. we're not at the stage yet where he has to decide exactly what it is but he's unequivocal in saying that this argument by prince andrew, that there is only one interpretation and it releases prince hunter from liability is not right. so my reading from this is that he is very clear that there are at least two interpretations of the settlements, and one of those interpretations is that prince andrew is not released in any way from liability. so, for me, this order was very very clear

that he is still open to that possibility, that in fact the 2009 settlement has no bearing at all on this lawsuit and it will go ahead like any other lawsuit. so i think he was very clear on that and he made some comments on the order, similar to how he did in the hearing, that he is basically very straightforward that prince andrew's argument that this nix for lawsuit altogether is just not right. just altogether is 'ust not right. just reminders altogether isjust not right. just reminders all _ altogether isjust not right. just reminders all us _ altogether isjust not right. just reminders all us what it is that prince andrew is being accused of in this lawsuit? this prince andrew is being accused of in this lawsuit?— this lawsuit? this is a civil lawsuit. — this lawsuit? this is a civil lawsuit, not _ this lawsuit? this is a civil lawsuit, not a _ this lawsuit? this is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal- this lawsuit? this is a civil- lawsuit, not a criminal lawsuit, thatis lawsuit, not a criminal lawsuit, that is important to always keep in mind. it alleges that prince andrew sexually abused virginia giuffre in three different places, one of those places was in london, here in the uk, and also in the us. alleges that one virginia giuffre was underage, she was traffic to prince andrew and that he sexually abuse her in that

context. so, those of the allegations that he will now have to face in". and that's something that i don't think he expected to come out of this and i think that is why it is really significant, because those sexual abuse allegations will be tested and virginia giuffre will get the chance to come before a court and make those allegations prince andrew. 50 court and make those allegations prince andrew.— prince andrew. so interesting it. just reading _ prince andrew. so interesting it. just reading through _ prince andrew. so interesting it. just reading through the - prince andrew. so interesting it. j just reading through the wording prince andrew. so interesting it. i just reading through the wording of judge kaplan'sjudgment, the 2009 decision cannot be said to benefit the duke of york. during a virtual hearing today, they said the duke of york was a potential defendant and the case should be dismissed. 0f the case should be dismissed. of course, that argument has won the day but throughout all of this, prince andrew has repeatedly said that he was not involved, that he is

not guilty and that is something that we presume he will continue to say when this comes to court in new york. just wondering if you can still hear us, lucia?— york. just wondering if you can still hear us, lucia? yes, sorry, ou're still hear us, lucia? yes, sorry, you're back _ still hear us, lucia? yes, sorry, you're back now. _ still hear us, lucia? yes, sorry, you're back now. would - still hear us, lucia? yes, sorry, you're back now. would you i still hear us, lucia? yes, sorry, i you're back now. would you mind repeating that last part? yes. repeating that last part? yes, throughout — repeating that last part? yes, throughout all— repeating that last part? yes, throughout all of _ repeating that last part? yes, throughout all of this, - repeating that last part? yes, throughout all of this, prince | throughout all of this, prince andrew has repeatedly claimed his innocence, saying he was not involved in these crimes he is accused of committing some 20 years ago and one can only presume that when they succumbs to court in new york, that will continue to be his stance. ~ , , ~ york, that will continue to be his stance. ~ , , . , . york, that will continue to be his stance. ~ , . , . ., stance. absolutely. we expect that prince andrew _ stance. absolutely. we expect that prince andrew and _ stance. absolutely. we expect that prince andrew and his _ stance. absolutely. we expect that prince andrew and his lawyers i stance. absolutely. we expect that prince andrew and his lawyers willl prince andrew and his lawyers will vigorously defend these claims. as you say, he has denied these allegations again and again and i expect what we'll see when he does have to file a defence is a blanket

denial of these allegations. but of course, now that we are at this stage, because he has failed to get the lawsuit thrown out, he is now obliged to file a very detailed defence to these allegations. so we're moving on now from the stage where he can give a one line that saying that he never met her and that he denies all allegations, he will now have to set out in response to all of these specific allegations in her claim what he says to each of those allegations. so again, this is a significant step, even in terms of prince andrew's denials, because he will now be forced to be much more specific about every claim that she makes about when they met, where they met, and the circumstances under which the alleged abuse took place. so i for one will be watching very closely for when he doesn't file that defence, because it will give us a lot more information about how he has decided to tackle this.

and all this follows that the decision, again by a court in new york, to find ghislaine maxwell guilty of recruiting and trafficking young girls and have them sexually abused by the late financierjeffrey epstein. she was found guilty of five of the six counts she faced, including the most serious charge sheet phase, that of sex trafficking. that verdict was reached after five full days of deliberation by a 12 personjury in new york. this is a story that has captivated the world now for a very long time and this now the latest twist. .. , �* long time and this now the latest twist. , ~ ., �*, long time and this now the latest twist. , ~ , twist. exactly. and that's why i think this is — twist. exactly. and that's why i think this is a _ twist. exactly. and that's why i think this is a really _ twist. exactly. and that's why i think this is a really significant | think this is a really significant judgment and i thinkjudge lewis kaplan will have taken a lot of time to think about this because we have just come off the back of a really significant conviction for ghislaine maxwell and she has now been held

accountable for her role in the crimes committed byjeffrey epstein and so i think this is an important time for accountability. i think the new york courts are certainly recognising that we have had decades of very little accountability in terms of these crimes. and so, i think it is really interesting that what we have seen from judge kaplan a lying some in a way, with what we saw from the jury in the ghislaine maxwell trial and it signals to me that the law is shifting its position on accountability for these types of crimes. and i think allowing this suit by virginia giuffre to go forward right after this conviction means that we were now finally no more and more about what happened injeffrey epstein and ghislaine maxwell's scheme. people will finally be held accountable in one form or another. that's why i

think today's decision, while it is an interim ruling on a case that is not the same as a jury verdicts, it is more significant than most interim rulings, just because of the moment we're aim, and i think 2022 will be a significant year in terms of these allegations. ids, will be a significant year in terms of these allegations.— will be a significant year in terms of these allegations. a reminder for viewers who — of these allegations. a reminder for viewers who have _ of these allegations. a reminder for viewers who have just _ of these allegations. a reminder for viewers who have just joined i of these allegations. a reminder for viewers who have just joined us, i of these allegations. a reminder for| viewers who have just joined us, the viewers who havejustjoined us, the breaking news is that prince andrew will face a civil sex assault case after a us ruling after the prince has failed to get a ruling in his case to get the allegations of sexual assault dismissed looks a virginia giuffre is suing the prince claiming he abused her when she was 17. and, lucia, this is a civil case, important to make that the section, why is that? it is section, why is that? it is important _ section, why is that? it is important to _

section, why is that? it is important to make i section, why is that? it is important to make the i section, why is that? it 3 important to make the distinction that this is a civil lawsuit and not a criminal case. that places it in contrast to the criminal case that we heard against glenn maxwell over the last five weeks. this is a civil lawsuit that virginia giuffre has brought forward. the reason that... we don't know exactly why it is being brought as a civil lawsuit and various police departments up until now decided not to bring criminal seating and skates prince andrew. for ginger freight seating and skates prince andrew. for gingerfreight can in her personal capacity bring the civil lawsuit a pitcher as she is not a government body, she can't bring criminal charges. that's why we're and a civil context at the moment. that's not to say that movement on this civil case might not see criminal charges being brought down the line. that is what we saw with jeffrey epstein and glenn maxwell that, over many years, many more civil lawsuits were brought against

them, though civil lawsuits led to theposition evidence being brought forward which eventually led to the us federal government to bring charges against bothjeffrey epstein and ghislaine maxwell. the prince andrew situation is much more complicated in terms of criminal charges because he's not a subject of any us jurisdiction because charges because he's not a subject of any usjurisdiction because he is here in the uk. it is complicated but there is nothing to say that the civil lawsuit might not meet the needle along in terms of the possibility of criminal charges, especially when we start to see evidence coming forward. thank you for that analysis _ evidence coming forward. thank you for that analysis and _ evidence coming forward. thank you for that analysis and response i evidence coming forward. thank you for that analysis and response to i for that analysis and response to this breaking news we'vejust for that analysis and response to this breaking news we've just had in. just to remind viewers of the news we have just had ten, prince andrew has failed in his bid to get a civil case which alleges he sexually assaulted virginia giuffre

just messed by usjudge. ms giuffre is suing the prince saying he abused her when she was 17. a prince andrew has consistently denied the allegations. let's get a bit background now on this case from nicholas witchell. so, what does he do now and watch as the royal family do now and watch as the royal family do with him? after months in which andrew tried first to ignore the case then to avoid court papers being served on him and having finally appointed us lawyers to try to get the case dismissed, he finds himself facing some stark choices. his motion to get the case dismissed, having failed, andrew's options are meant to address — he can settle out of court, there would be no admission of liability but will pay a perhaps substantial sum to virginia defray. he can do false, that is ignore the court case and, by default, there would be a finding against him. finally, he could fight it out in court. he

would have to give it a position under oath, the rival stories will be tested, the matter would be decided in". lawyers who have been following the case say none of the options will be attractive to him. andrew's got no good options now. can't make things better, so essentially, i think he's either going to have to engage in the trial process or he's going to have to settle, and that may well be his least worst option. bud settle, and that may well be his least worst option.— settle, and that may well be his least worst option. and then there's the question — least worst option. and then there's the question of— least worst option. and then there's the question of andrew's _ least worst option. and then there's the question of andrew's future i least worst option. and then there'sj the question of andrew's future with the question of andrew's future with the royal family. ten years ago, the time of the queen's diamond jubilee, and was very much in evidence. a much has happened in the year sense and most of which come in the case of andrew, has been deeply embarrassing for the royal family. in his newsnight interview, the one which he said he couldn't remember a meeting of the vendor 17—year—olds in virginia defray, and was asked whether he felt he had damaged royal family. i whether he felt he had damaged royal famil . ., �* , �* , whether he felt he had damaged royal

famil. , family. i don't believe it's been damaiiin family. i don't believe it's been damaging to — family. i don't believe it's been damaging to the _ family. i don't believe it's been damaging to the queen - family. i don't believe it's been damaging to the queen at i family. i don't believe it's been damaging to the queen at all, i family. i don't believe it's been | damaging to the queen at all, it family. i don't believe it's been i damaging to the queen at all, it has to be. if i were in a position to be able to answer all these questions in a way which gave sensible answers, other than the ones that i'll are given, that will get closer, i'd love it, but i'm afraid i can't because i am just as much in the dark as many people. yet i can't because i am just as much in the dark as many people.— i can't because i am just as much in the dark as many people. yet for all of andrews — the dark as many people. yet for all of andrew's trials _ the dark as many people. yet for all of andrew's trials of _ the dark as many people. yet for all of andrew's trials of wrongdoing, i of andrew's trials of wrongdoing, might this be the time for him to withdraw entirely from public life? he has maintained some positions. behind the scenes, there's some unease, a feeling that there is, of all years, the year of the queen's platinumjubilee, it all years, the year of the queen's platinum jubilee, it would be preferable for notch a second son to recognise that, she said in the newsnight interview, he's let the side down and there for he should ballot gracefully and completely.

andrew has got no good options. you can't make _ andrew has got no good options. you can't make things better so essentially i think he has either going _ essentially i think he has either going to — essentially i think he has either going to have to engage in the trial process— going to have to engage in the trial process or— going to have to engage in the trial process or he's going to have to settle — process or he's going to have to settle. , , ., process or he's going to have to settle. , y., ., ,., , settle. did you lie about the party is prime minister? _ settle. did you lie about the party is prime minister? pressure i settle. did you lie about the party is prime minister? pressure is i is prime minister? pressure is iirowin is prime minister? pressure is growing on — is prime minister? pressure is growing on the _ is prime minister? pressure is growing on the prime - is prime minister? pressure isj growing on the prime minister is prime minister? pressure is i growing on the prime minister after he offered his apology over it —— attending a drinks gathering in the garden of number ten in may 2020. i

garden of number ten in may 2020. i certainly wish that things had happened differently on the evening of may— happened differently on the evening of may the 20th and i apologise for all the _ of may the 20th and i apologise for all the misjudgments that have been madei _ all the misjudgments that have been made. for— all the misjudgments that have been made, for which i take full responsibility.— made, for which i take full resonsibili . , ,, ., , responsibility. despite the apology, the prime minister _ responsibility. despite the apology, the prime minister was _ responsibility. despite the apology, the prime minister was urged i responsibility. despite the apology, the prime minister was urged to i the prime minister was urged to resign. the prime minister was urged to resin. ~ ., , resign. when the whole country was locked down. _ resign. when the whole country was locked down, he _ resign. when the whole country was locked down, he was _ resign. when the whole country was locked down, he was hosting i resign. when the whole country was locked down, he was hosting boozy| locked down, he was hosting boozy parties in downing street. is he now going to do the decent thing and resign? d0 going to do the decent thing and resin? . ., resign? do the decent thing and resin. resign? do the decent thing and resign. orwell— resign? do the decent thing and resign. orwell his _ resign? do the decent thing and resign. orwell his tory - resign? do the decent thing and resign. orwell his tory mps i resign? do the decent thing and resign. orwell his tory mps be i resign. 0rwell his tory mps be forced — resign. 0rwell his tory mps be forced to— resign. 0rwell his tory mps be forced to show— resign. 0rwell his tory mps be forced to show him _ resign. 0rwell his tory mps be forced to show him the - resign. 0rwell his tory mps be forced to show him the door? i hello. prince andrew will have to

face a civil case in the us over allegations that he sexually assaulted a 17—year—old girl virginia giuffre. an attempt by the prince legal team to have the case dismissed has today been rejected by a usjudge. the duke of york's lawyers had argued that virginia giuffre had waived her right to sue under previous settlement agreement with jeffrey epstein. under previous settlement agreement withjeffrey epstein. she alleges that he trafficked her to have six with several people including the duke. prince andrew denies all the allegations made against him. i am joined now by our royal correspondent. first off, any reaction yet from the palace? lilo. reaction yet from the palace? no, but they have _ reaction yet from the palace? no, but they have no _ reaction yet from the palace? idfr, but they have no comment on an ongoing legal matter. let's make no bones about it, this is now a monumental mess. we are not three days now since buckingham palace confirmed all the details of the platinum jubilee and we have the prospect of this civil six case

against her second son in september. it's a long and detailed ruling from thejudge in the district it's a long and detailed ruling from the judge in the district court in new york. 43 pages of it. it finishes with these words, the defendant's motion is denied in all respects. so there we are, his attempt to have this case dismissed has failed and i think that was entirely predictable given the tenor of the exchanges in court last week when andrew's council was given a very hard time by the judge and when andrew's council was given a very hard time by thejudge and it appeared then that he was not being persuaded that there were grounds, these third—party beneficial grounds which andrew's council pleaded on his behalf that he was entitled to, the judge has rejected his behalf that he was entitled to, thejudge has rejected all of his behalf that he was entitled to, the judge has rejected all of that so it now goes forward to the prospect of a civil trial in the

autumn, unless of course andrew does now seek an out—of—court settlement. that would be one imagines costly to him but they can only be an out—of—court settlement if virginia giuffre is prepared to settle. and there are suggestions that she now wants her day in court, that she wants her day in court, that she wants her day in court, that she wants her allegations fiercely denied by andrew, but that she wants these allegations to be aid in court. so we shall have to see but it is an absolute mess now. we heard a little bit earlier— it is an absolute mess now. we heard a little bit earlier from _ it is an absolute mess now. we heard a little bit earlier from the _ it is an absolute mess now. we heard a little bit earlier from the media i a little bit earlierfrom the media lawyer saying prince andrew has no good options. he lawyer saying prince andrew has no good options-_ lawyer saying prince andrew has no good options-_ lawyer saying prince andrew has no good options. he has basically three 0 tions. good options. he has basically three options- he — good options. he has basically three options- he can _ good options. he has basically three options. he can seek _ good options. he has basically three options. he can seek an _ good options. he has basically three| options. he can seek an out-of-court options. he can seek an out—of—court settlement, he can default come he can ignore the case and not enter a defence, in which case it will be found against him, the verdict will go against him so he would be dot to a civil case, it's not a criminal

case so it's not a criminal conviction, but it would be found against him if he doesn't enter a defence against him. all he can decide now to contest it. he can go forward, he would have to give a deposition in the growth. there is no question of him turning up in court and giving evidence in court and being cross—examined in court, but if he decides to contest it both stories will then be susceptible to challenge and certainly andrew's lawyers believe they do have grounds and believe there are inconsistencies in the story by virginia giuffre and they say they are keen to point these out. but as most lawyers would say, he has no good options now and one would imagine his advisers and there are

questions about the advice he has been receiving, one must think they would be considering whether the most sensible course of action would be to seek an out—of—court settlement. but that does depend on the other party being prepared to enter into an out—of—court settlement. enter into an out-of-court settlement.— enter into an out-of-court settlement. ~ ., ., ,, , , settlement. whatever happens in this court case, settlement. whatever happens in this court case. is — settlement. whatever happens in this court case, is there _ settlement. whatever happens in this court case, is there any _ settlement. whatever happens in this court case, is there any salvaging - court case, is there any salvaging of the prince's reputation? everyone can come to — of the prince's reputation? everyone can come to their— of the prince's reputation? everyone can come to their wrong _ of the prince's reputation? everyone can come to their wrong conclusion l can come to their wrong conclusion about that. let's put it this way, i think it is very, very hard to see any route back for him to any sort of public role. he clings on to his colonel ship of the grenadier guards. what is the first event of the platinum jubilee weekend? it's trooping the colour. he would be expected to ride as colonel of the grenadier guards at trooping the colour. the grenadier guards don't want him, that is absolutely

certain. they have not said it publicly but behind the scenes they are acutely embarrassed to have prince andrew as their colonel. thank you very much. let's look into some of the background to this case. so what does he do now and what does the royal family do with him? after months during which andrew tried first to ignore the case then to avoid court papers being served on him and having finally appointed us lawyers to try to get the case dismissed, he finds himself facing some stark choices. his motion to get the case dismissed having failed, andrew's options amounts to this. he can settle out of court, they would be no admission of liability but he would pay a perhaps substantial sum to virginia giuffre. he can default, that is ignore the

court case and by default they would be a finding against him. finally, he could fight it out in court. he have to give a deposition in the roath, the rival stories would be tested, the matter would be decided in open court. lawyers who have been following the case say none of the options will be attractive to him. andrew has got no good options now. he can't make things better so essentially i think he is either going to have to engage in the process of settle. and then there's the question of andrew's future with the royal family. ten years ago, the time of the queen's diamond jubilee, and was very much in evidence. a much has happened in the year sense and most of which come in the case of andrew, has been deeply embarrassing for the royal family. in his newsnight interview, the one which he said he couldn't remember a meeting of the vendor i7—year—olds in virginia defray, and was asked

whether he felt he had damaged royal family. i don't believe it's been damaging to the queen at all, it has to be. if i were in a position to be able to answer all these questions in a way which gave sensible answers, other than the ones that i'll are given, that will get closer, i'd love it, but i'm afraid i can't because i am just as much in the dark as many people. yet for all of andrew's trials of wrongdoing, might this be the time for him to withdraw entirely from public life? he has maintained some positions. behind the scenes, there's some unease, a feeling that there is, this of all years, the year of the queen's platinum jubilee, it would be preferable for notch a second son to recognise that, she said in the newsnight interview, he's let the side down and there for he should ballot gracefully and completely. we can speak now to a former

prosecutor with the southern district of new york. first of all, your reaction to this judgment? i am your reaction to this 'udgment? i am not surprised. _ your reaction to this 'udgment? i am not surprised. i— your reaction to thisjudgment? i am not surprised. i think— your reaction to thisjudgment? i —n not surprised. i think everything pointed to this outcome. the argument indicated that the judge is inclined to disallow this motion to dismiss and i expected the decision and it came quickly. i5 dismiss and i expected the decision and it came quickly.— and it came quickly. is that partly because of— and it came quickly. is that partly because of the _ and it came quickly. is that partly because of the judge's _ and it came quickly. is that partly. because of the judge's questioning of prince andrew's lawyers at the time or is it because of the basis of his case? the questioning of his lawyers was really to the point and expressed the judge's scepticism about the arguments. the arguments themselves frankly just arguments. the arguments themselves franklyjust didn't arguments. the arguments themselves frankly just didn't carry arguments. the arguments themselves

franklyjust didn't carry the same weight of persuasion as they could have been. this weight of persuasion as they could have been. , , ., have been. this is an interim judgment. — have been. this is an interim judgment. is _ have been. this is an interim judgment, is that _ have been. this is an interim judgment, is that relevant? l have been. this is an interim - judgment, is that relevant? prince andrew cannot _ judgment, is that relevant? prince andrew cannot appeal _ judgment, is that relevant? prince andrew cannot appeal at _ judgment, is that relevant? prince andrew cannot appeal at this - judgment, is that relevant? princej andrew cannot appeal at this point so the case will move forward. they will proceed into a period called discovery where each side will exchange information with each other. they will do depositions. it's not a finaljudgment on the case but the interim decision that will allow the case to move forward. looking at prince andrew's options now, a media lawyer in the uk has said he has no good options legally. how would you assess them? he has seriously be — how would you assess them? he has seriously be considering _ how would you assess them? he has seriously be considering the - seriously be considering the possibility of resolving this case prior to discovery. i am confident

he does not want to be deposed, the people close to him will not want to be deposed. to avoid that he has to resolve the case before it gets to that point. having those discussions i am sure with his team right now and perhaps having discussions with the lawyers of virginia giuffre as well. so they can discuss whether the case is going to move forward into discovery phase or whether they will be some sort of resolution the parties can reach. he will be some sort of resolution the parties can reach.— parties can reach. he has all the while strenuously _ parties can reach. he has all the while strenuously denied - parties can reach. he has all the while strenuously denied the - while strenuously denied the allegations and they have been suggestions that virginia giuffre's story has inconsistencies in it. you have been, you have previously prosecuted six trafficking cases, where would you put this story, looking at this particular case, how would you judge it within your

experience? it would you judge it within your exoerience?— would you judge it within your exerience? , ., ., would you judge it within your exerience? ., ., experience? it is not uncommon for victims of traumatic _ experience? it is not uncommon for victims of traumatic crimes - experience? it is not uncommon for victims of traumatic crimes to - experience? it is not uncommon for victims of traumatic crimes to have | victims of traumatic crimes to have difficulty remembering all of the details of those incidents. it's not uncommon for their memories of those incidents to be inconsistent. that is normal for events that happened a long time ago and normal for events that traumatised victim. those inconsistencies in themselves don't really affect the credibility of his story. i think prince andrew has come under some significant pressure based on his public statements regarding his contact or his lack of any contact with virginia giuffre but at the end of the day it would be for the jury to decide who story

is credible. 50 be for the jury to decide who story is credible-— be for the jury to decide who story is credible. ., ., , , , ., we is credible. so what happens now? we ro into this is credible. so what happens now? we go into this discovery _ is credible. so what happens now? we go into this discovery phase _ is credible. so what happens now? we go into this discovery phase where - go into this discovery phase where all of this information is exchanged, and exchange of documents and depositions and after that phase is concluded you have an opportunity for summaryjudgment which is an opportunity for each party to essentially say there is no issues of here so that the court resolve this. the court can say there are no issues which would be unlikely in a case like this... issues which would be unlikely in a case like this. . ._ case like this... when you say issues of _ case like this... when you say issues of material _ case like this... when you say issues of material fact, - case like this... when you say issues of material fact, can i case like this... when you say. issues of material fact, can you speu issues of material fact, can you spell that out? if issues of material fact, can you spell that out?— issues of material fact, can you spell that out? if you have a civil case and there _ spell that out? if you have a civil case and there is _ spell that out? if you have a civil case and there is no _ spell that out? if you have a civil case and there is no issue - spell that out? if you have a civil case and there is no issue in - spell that out? if you have a civil case and there is no issue in the | case and there is no issue in the factual story then the judge can decide the case on summaryjudgment meaning he or she can apply the law to the facts that are not in dispute. in this case, there are

going to be facts of the spirit, it's hard to imagine that there are no material facts of dispute. but thatis no material facts of dispute. but that is a stage in the case where the rules allow for and after the summaryjudgment you move into a trial phase. in this case the judge has indicated he would set the entire schedule, looking forward to a trial in the last quarter of 2022, sometime between september and december of 2022. should the prince and his lawyers either be unwilling or unable to come to some sort of settlement before that, it is entirely possible we could see prince andrew having to give evidence in a trial? absolutely. the case would first have to provide information in a

deposition and ultimately a trial. at deposition, he would have a right to take the fifth amendment, do not say anything that would incriminate him criminally. he would have a basis for doing that, but that decision, of course, would hurt him in a civil case. that's a decision he would have to make very carefully. then, frankly, his lawyers have too seriously be considering the options for resolving this prior to those phases of this litigation. i can't imagine it's in prince andrew's interest for the details of his conduct to come out in the public domain. 50 the details of his conduct to come out in the public domain.- the details of his conduct to come out in the public domain. so you are or have been _ out in the public domain. so you are or have been a _ out in the public domain. so you are or have been a prosecutor _ out in the public domain. so you are or have been a prosecutor rather - or have been a prosecutor rather than a defence lawyer, if you were representing prince andrew, how would you advise him? 50. representing prince andrew, how would you advise him?— representing prince andrew, how would you advise him? so, i'm now defence lawyer! _

would you advise him? so, i'm now defence lawyer! i _ would you advise him? so, i'm now defence lawyer! i changed - would you advise him? so, i'm now defence lawyer! i changed during i defence lawyer! i changed during lockdown so i am now doing defence, but i did spend 14 years as a prosecutor. i would certainly advise a resolution here. i can tell from the court papers that ms giuffre's lawyers had reached out to prince andrew even before filing this case to try and reach a monetary resolution, and they were unable to do that. so, from those papers, it indicates ms giuffre is interested indicates ms giuffre is interested in a resolution here and ultimately, evenif in a resolution here and ultimately, even if she won the case, the benefit to her as a monetary benefit. so, ithink benefit to her as a monetary benefit. so, i think it's in everyone's interests to explore that option and i certainly would advise prince andrew of that if i were representing him.— prince andrew of that if i were representing him. prince andrew of that if i were

re-rresentin him. ., ~' . representing him. thank you so much. thank ou. representing him. thank you so much. thank you- we — representing him. thank you so much. thank you. we spoke _ representing him. thank you so much. thank you. we spoke earlier _ representing him. thank you so much. thank you. we spoke earlier to - representing him. thank you so much. thank you. we spoke earlier to a - thank you. we spoke earlier to a re orter thank you. we spoke earlier to a reporter with _ thank you. we spoke earlier to a reporter with the _ thank you. we spoke earlier to a reporter with the american - thank you. we spoke earlier to a reporter with the american legal| reporter with the american legal news service said that the judge's decision is likely to come as a surprise to prince andrew's legal team. this is a hugely significant ruling in my opinion. they would have been confident they could get this lawsuit thrown out an early stage and they have failed to do that. we have seen that this lawsuit will go ahead, that is the big takeaway from this, that prince andrew and his lawyers wanted to use this 2009 settlement, basically to try and get this lawsuit thrown out on a technicality, that virginia giuffre had released all potential defendants from any lawsuit for the

rest of time and the court has said that's not the right interpretation or that is not necessarily the right interpretation of that 2009 settlement and therefore the case must go ahead. basically, he is saying there is a case to answer here. he is saying that he rejects prince andrew's lawyers' intention that there is only one way to read this 2009 settlement and that one way is that prince andrew is released from all liability. the judge has said clearly in this order that there are at least two interpretations of that settlement and what he says is that virginia giuffre's interpretation of that settlement, which is much narrower, is also a possible interpretation. and so what he's saying is that we need to go to trial, we need to understand, we need to have the argument about exactly what this settlement means and that he's not going to just throw it out at this stage by acquiescing to prince andrew's arguments that there is no

question here, the settlement to protect prince andrew and it can't be sued by virginia giuffre. service are significant, it lines up with my interpretation of the here and we had last week, judge kaplan's views in the hearing were very sceptical, i thought, of prince andrew's arguments so i'm not surprised this is thejudgment he arguments so i'm not surprised this is the judgment he has arguments so i'm not surprised this is thejudgment he has reached but it is a very significant. now we move onto the face what we have discovery or disclosure of documents and evidence and i don't think prince andrew would ever have expected to be facing an order to hand over documents relating to this suit. so, it's really significant and i think it's important day in terms ofjustice.— and i think it's important day in terms ofjustice. terms of 'ustice. break it down for us, rirht terms ofjustice. break it down for us. right at _ terms ofjustice. break it down for us, right at some _ terms ofjustice. break it down for us, right at some of _ terms ofjustice. break it down for us, right at some of the _ terms ofjustice. break it down for us, right at some of the wording l terms ofjustice. break it down for| us, right at some of the wording of the from judge kaplan a little earlier, how would you translate those legalese into normal speak for

the layman? was a fairly unequivocal in his meaning? i the layman? was a fairly unequivocal in his meaning?— in his meaning? i think so. it is important _ in his meaning? i think so. it is important to — in his meaning? i think so. it is important to note _ in his meaning? i think so. it is important to note that - in his meaning? i think so. it is important to note that he - in his meaning? i think so. it is important to note that he he'sl in his meaning? i think so. it is i important to note that he he's not being unequivocal in terms of deciding what the meaning of the 2009 settlement is. we're not at the stage yet where he has to decide exactly what it is but he's unequivocal in saying that this argument by prince andrew that there is only one interpretation and it releases prince andrew from all liability is not right. so my reading of his words in this order is that he's very clear that there are at least two interpretations of the settlement and one of those interpretations is that prince andrew is not released in any way from liability. and so, for me, this order was very clear that he is still open to that possibility and that the 2009 settlement has no bearing that the 2009 settlement has no hearing at all on this lawsuit and it will go ahead like any other

lawsuit. so i think he was very clear on that and he made some comments in the order, similar to how he did in the hearing, tojust basically very very straightforward, that prince andrew's argument that this annuls the lawsuit altogether is just not right. for viewers to justjoining us, for viewers tojustjoining us, some big news today that prince andrew will have to face a civil case in the us over allegations that he sexually assaulted a i7—year—old girl, virginia giuffre. as follows an attempt by the prince's legal team to have the case dismissed today, and that was rejected by a judge in the us. lawyers for the duke of york had argued that ms giuffre had to wait her right to sue

because of a previous settlement agreement with jeffrey epstein. epstein, agreement withjeffrey epstein. epstein, the agreement with jeffrey epstein. epstein, the convicted sex offender who was found dead in a jail two years ago. ms giuffre alleges that epstein traffics her to have sex with several people, including the duke of york. throughout all of this, prince andrew has denied all the allegations made against him. i am joined by the managing editor of the law and crime network, based in new york and has been following this case closely. hello, adam. first of all, your reaction, please, is this all, your reaction, please, is this a judgment you were expecting or not? ., ., ., ., not? having sat through the oral arguments _ not? having sat through the oral arguments of— not? having sat through the oral arguments of the _ not? having sat through the oral arguments of the case, - not? having sat through the oral arguments of the case, it - not? having sat through the oral arguments of the case, it was i not? having sat through the oral. arguments of the case, it was very clear that the judge was sharply

questioning the prince's lawyers. i think i in a number of other reporters had that headline, judge sceptical of andrew's motion to dismiss and indeed that's what we found out today. he rejected all the prince's arguments to dismiss virginia giuffre's lawsuit at this stage of litigation and what we have to proceed during that hearing, that the judge was very sceptical of the prince's arguments, in fact came to pass. he rejected them entirely, at least at this stage. 50? pass. he rejected them entirely, at least at this stage.— least at this stage. so, what the church was _ least at this stage. so, what the church was being _ least at this stage. so, what the church was being asked - least at this stage. so, what the church was being asked to i least at this stage. so, what the i church was being asked to consider was whether a previous settlement agreements between virginia giuffre and jeffrey epstein meant that prince andrew could not be liable in a court, that he would not have to face any allegations made by virginia giuffre. judge has thrown that out. should this come to trial

in the autumn, and we don't know that it will, but should it come to trial, would that be tested again? maybe. reading from the ruling, he makes a point over and over again to say that, at this stage of the proceedings, whose role is to a, decide whether the allegations were well played and issued the allegations to be true for the purposes of this motion. he also had to determine whether there were two reasonable interpretations of this 2009 agreement. so, he did not determine as a matter of law that the prince has no defence when it comes to this agreement. the prince may argue before a trier of fact, if this goes to trial, to a jury or to a judge, that this 2009 agreement protects him. but at this stage of the litigation, it was not enough to just point to this agreement and say that he should not face this

lawsuit. this lawsuit is in fact going to move ahead, it will go to the discovery process. the discovery process has never paused and the judge has already set a deadline for the end of discovery at around july 14. of the end of discovery at around july 14. 0�* ., ., ., the end of discovery at around july 14. of and for those who don't know, ex - lain to 14. of and for those who don't know, explain to us — 14. of and for those who don't know, explain to us exactly _ 14. of and for those who don't know, explain to us exactly what _ 14. of and for those who don't know, explain to us exactly what the - explain to us exactly what the discovery process is. discovery is essentially _ discovery process is. discovery is essentially the _ discovery process is. discovery is essentially the fact _ discovery process is. discovery is essentially the fact gathering i essentially the fact gathering process. a i'll give you an example, the infamous interview on newsnight, prince andrew made the assertion that he did not sweat, that he was medically incapable of sweating at the time that ms giuffre alleged that he did. miss giuffre's council has specifically asked for evidence of that claim. the discovery phase, there time period, is when a good to seek evidence attesting the other party's assertions, that might be

through documentary evidence, it might be through depositions, but thatis might be through depositions, but that is what this phase all about. and what of the duke of york's legal options now we've had this decision from thejudge? he options now we've had this decision from the judge?— options now we've had this decision from the judge? from the 'udge? he can see how his la ers from the judge? he can see how his lawyers will — from the judge? he can see how his lawyers will react, _ from the judge? he can see how his lawyers will react, whether - from the judge? he can see how his lawyers will react, whether they i lawyers will react, whether they will see that they have an option. they have not yet announced their intentions as far as that goes. as for what they will do in the discovery process, we know previously that they have wanted to depose ms giuffre, to challenge issues even like jurisdiction, whether the case belongs in the us federal courts, their argument is that ms giuffre was actually residing in australia, so that issue has not yet been adjudicated. they may take any number of litigation options as this case progresses.

fascinating, thank you for talking to us. ., ~ fascinating, thank you for talking to us. . ,, ,., fascinating, thank you for talking to us. . ,, y., ., fascinating, thank you for talking to us. . ,, ., ., our to us. thank you for having me. our ro al to us. thank you for having me. our royal correspondent _ to us. thank you for having me. our royal correspondent is _ to us. thank you for having me. our royal correspondent is with - to us. thank you for having me. our royal correspondent is with me. i to us. thank you for having me. our royal correspondent is with me. we | royal correspondent is with me. we have been talking about the queen's platinum jubilee year this year, just in the last two or three weeks, and now this. just in the last two or three weeks, and now this-— and now this. this will now hang over that. _ and now this. this will now hang over that. no — and now this. this will now hang over that, no doubt _ and now this. this will now hang over that, no doubt about i and now this. this will now hang over that, no doubt about it. i i over that, no doubt about it. i don't think there is any doubt that the royalfamily is don't think there is any doubt that the royal family is an institution would love to see this case go away, but as we see, it is not going away. so, you have the damage to the institution because of all the questions swirling around the queen's second son but also have the position of prince andrew. consider that, forfor the position of prince andrew. consider that, for for the last six months or so, we have been told that this deal that was struck between the jeffrey epstein and virginia giuffre back in 2009 it would essentially be a get out of trial free card for prince

andrew. thejudge hasjust dismiss that on every count is. as i understand it, there is the chance and possibility of appeal for the prince, to try again in this process before trial, to try and get this close down, but it is a very narrow. he would need to leave to appeal it anyway, in that process, what adam was talking about there, this discovery process will continue, this exchange of information. there you have to risk, one a set eventually, one all this comes to trial, all this information becomes public, that is the nature of the trial and that is horrible in itself, and that is, in the process of covering all this stuff, does prince andrew sweat, what is pizza express in woking, whatever it might be, that then leaks into the public domain, because that has been known to happen, particular in us civil trial is. so, this is a pretty clear, disastrous result for prince andrew and it leaves open the

possibility of six, ten months of embarrassment now over the year to come. you mentioned a possible narrow opening for the lawyers, would it be based on arguing about the settlement agreement that was reached between jeffrey settlement agreement that was reached betweenjeffrey epstein and virginia giuffre? h’s reached between jeffrey epstein and virginia giuffre?— virginia giuffre? it's appealing the decision of the _ virginia giuffre? it's appealing the decision of the judge _ virginia giuffre? it's appealing the decision of the judge which - virginia giuffre? it's appealing the decision of the judge which has i virginia giuffre? it's appealing the i decision of the judge which has come out in the last hour and saying wrong interpretation, wrong process. it is pretty slim. the first i spoke to about it says there is no appeal but actually there is a repeal and it's really slim. it's also the machinery of the case continues while that appeal goes on. so again you have this request for information and request for the deposition and that is prince andrew sitting down and taking questions from virginia giuffre's lawyers as they try and extract information from him. that can be enforced even

if prince andrew stays in england. there is a mechanism to enforce him giving testimony in a deposition for us trial. so this doesn't get any better and his legal options are narrowing day by day. nearly everyone who has been following this case has been saying he will need to settle. however innocent he may be, however innocent proclaims himself to be, the simple process of this trial would be so painful that he will need to work out a settlement. we will have to wait and see what his lawyers are thinking. haee we will have to wait and see what his lawyers are thinking. have they been questions _ his lawyers are thinking. have they been questions asked _ his lawyers are thinking. have they been questions asked about i his lawyers are thinking. have they been questions asked about the i his lawyers are thinking. have they. been questions asked about the sort of advice he has received? there been questions asked about the sort of advice he has received?— of advice he has received? there is clearl a of advice he has received? there is clearly a debate _ of advice he has received? there is clearly a debate because _ of advice he has received? there is clearly a debate because prince i clearly a debate because prince andrew's operation has really since he left life as a working royal, it's become separate from the palace and the royal household. he has a

different team who do his communications, he has his own private legal team and there is a debate about the various different strategies that have been pursued. no doubt there will be more debate now because he has lost the central strait of his argument which is i am covered by this 2009 deal. they will be vigorous debate about how he has been advised. but the problem for those who might want to rein him in or have a different strategy is, he is to some degree on the outside now, he is no longer part of the broader royal machine because of his withdrawal from working duties and his desire to perceive his own strategy. 50 his desire to perceive his own strater . , ., strategy. so he might be on the outside but _ strategy. so he might be on the outside but he _ strategy. so he might be on the outside but he still _ strategy. so he might be on the outside but he still is _ strategy. so he might be on the outside but he still is the i strategy. so he might be on the i outside but he still is the queen's second son. there royal family has had its fair share of dark times and troubles but they can be nothing they have had to contend with like this. ., , ., , . ,,

this. certainly not since the second world war- — this. certainly not since the second world war- i _ this. certainly not since the second world war. i suppose _ this. certainly not since the second world war. i suppose you - this. certainly not since the second world war. i suppose you look- this. certainly not since the second| world war. i suppose you look back to the application and it was profoundly destabilising but it didn't involve accusations like this. accusations, it is important to say prince andrew denies absolutely and has been found guilty of nothing. but the allegations themselves and the fact this trial is going on is very serious for the reputation of prince andrew and ds for the broader reputation the institution.— for the broader reputation the institution. , . . institution. many thanks. we can seak institution. many thanks. we can speak now _ institution. many thanks. we can speak now to _ institution. many thanks. we can speak now to our _ institution. many thanks. we can speak now to our legal— speak now to our legal correspondent. johnny was speaking there about a possible slim window for prince andrew, the possibility of appeal. talk us through that. there is this narrow window where basically ruling goes against the

defendant halfway through the case and whether or not new york's equivalent of the court of appeal will actually entertain a review. i have to be honest, on the face value looking at this 46 page ruling today, it's looking like that's going to be tough. what he says line by line is effectively the prince had no case of merit a toll on many of his points. so it's not as if there was something ambiguous. one example he gives is he goes into very deep detail about what florida law says about what a contract should be. the reason why that matters is because the settlement agreement upon which the duke of york's team were hanging this motion to dismiss was signed and sealed under florida law before the florida judge and what the judge in manhattan is saying, if the prince wants is to use that in this case

the language in that deal between jeffrey epstein and virginia giuffre would have to be an ambiguous about who else was covered by it and it simply doesn't do that. that is set out in case law going back many years. another thing he says and this is interesting, is that one of the other grounds that the duke's lawyers presented to the courts was a particular law that virginia giuffre is using to bring this damages claim 20 years after the alleged event, they were arguing it was unconstitutional because it breached his rights as a defendant and thejudge breached his rights as a defendant and the judge absolutely demolishes that and says this attack on the constitutionality of this victim's act is without merit, his case lacks persuasive legal authority. that is judicial language for effectively taking the case and throwing it out of the window. it's that strong this ruling against the prince. what

of the window. it's that strong this ruling against the prince. what sort of window to _ ruling against the prince. what sort of window to the _ ruling against the prince. what sort of window to the lawyers _ ruling against the prince. what sort of window to the lawyers have i ruling against the prince. what sort of window to the lawyers have to i of window to the lawyers have to appeal and will they have to appeal and a point of law? it appeal and will they have to appeal and a point of law?— and a point of law? it looks like es, and a point of law? it looks like yes. they _ and a point of law? it looks like yes. they have _ and a point of law? it looks like yes, they have to _ and a point of law? it looks like yes, they have to appeal- and a point of law? it looks like yes, they have to appeal and i and a point of law? it looks like yes, they have to appeal and al and a point of law? it looks like i yes, they have to appeal and a point of law as i understand it. the question is, is whether they can. it's looking difficult on this at the moment based on the amount of detail on the law which is in this. the next thing however happens which perhaps could crystallise minds is this phase which we are now entering, we are getting into this discovery phase where there is this tight timetable which has been set by thejudge for tight timetable which has been set by the judge for discovery. two things have to happen. virginia giuffre will be sent a list of questions to the duke of log lawyers demanding answers to various thing he said —— duke of york. one of them for instance is they want proof of

what he told newsnight that he can't sweat at the time that they met 20 years ago and if you recall that was a key part of a difference in testimony between virginia giuffre and the prince. she says she remembers him sweating profusely as they danced in a nightclub. he says that at the time he had a medical condition which meant he couldn't sweat. they will ask for the evidence of that through legal process of discovery. so far they have not answered that. they are now going to have to respond. similarly they have asked for evidence about they have asked for evidence about the apparent trip to the woking pizza express. the prince's team now have to respond to those requests and deal with them as part of discovery and even if they do get an appeal on the way. unless they get an appeal on and there is an audit for the rest of the case.—

an appeal on and there is an audit for the rest of the case. thank you very much — for the rest of the case. thank you very much for— for the rest of the case. thank you very much for all— for the rest of the case. thank you very much for all of— for the rest of the case. thank you very much for all of that. - for the rest of the case. thank you very much for all of that. we i for the rest of the case. thank you very much for all of that. we are l very much for all of that. we are joined now by mark stephens, a lawyer with expertise in defamation and reputation management. what an extraordinary case there says. did you see this coming? i extraordinary case there says. did you see this coming?— extraordinary case there says. did you see this coming? i think many la ers you see this coming? i think many lawyers saw _ you see this coming? i think many lawyers saw this — you see this coming? i think many lawyers saw this coming. - you see this coming? i think many lawyers saw this coming. the i you see this coming? i think many| lawyers saw this coming. the judge has thrown a judicial decision like a bomb into the middle of the heart of the royal family and it threatens to provoke a constitutional crisis as a consequence. this has been a case which was limited in the past two prince andrew, but as we understand now prince andrew's options are being increasingly limited. he can appeal, he can

settle or he can go on with the case or allow the case to go on. those are pretty bad options for him. his appeal has got merit but nobody i think is putting the chances that over 40%. the point they would take is that the judge has failed to interpret the settlement contract properly. but even while that appeal would be going on, thejudge has set this aggressive timetable for this matter to be heard later this year. my matter to be heard later this year. my expectation is that he will list the case to be heard in late november or early december with a view to allowing prince andrew both the time to prepare for the trial but also to conduct his appeal. but we are with prince andrew in the last chance saloon. the only thing

that makes this worse is that prince andrew has to start giving evidence in this case, whether that's about his sweating or his trip to pizza express his sweating or his trip to pizzaexpress or worse still the allegations of what he is supposed to have done with a i7—year—old woman. in those circumstances that creates the constitutional problems for the wider royal family because i think he has two settle and that is the big issue here. he doesn't really have many options and of course that gives virginia giuffre many of the cards in this case because of course if she knows he is desperate to settle and has to settle at all costs, then the price goes up. settle at all costs, then the price roes u ._ ., . settle at all costs, then the price roes ur. ., ., settle at all costs, then the price r-oesu. ., . , ., goes up. you have said the couple of times that there _ goes up. you have said the couple of times that there is _ goes up. you have said the couple of times that there is an _ goes up. you have said the couple of times that there is an impending i times that there is an impending constitutional crisis. is that

really the case? prince andrew has retired from public life. he is at the margins of the royal family. the potential embarrassment of the royal family would undoubtedly be there but a constitutional crisis? i family would undoubtedly be there but a constitutional crisis?- but a constitutional crisis? i used the word constitutional— but a constitutional crisis? i used the word constitutional crisis i the word constitutional crisis likely but i don't shy away from it in the sense that up until now there's virginia giuffre issue and there's virginia giuffre issue and the allegations have been limited to prince andrew. but what we have seen since the court case a couple of weeks ago has been essentially calls for him to front up and actually deal with the merits of the case, for him to be stripped of his titles, and they have been allegations about the queen paying his legal costs and also providing some measure of protection. this is the first time that prince andrew's problems have reached into and are

beginning to touch the wider royal family. they will be crisis meetings taking place. downing street will be consulted. the privy councillors will be called in. and of course the most central advisers to the key members of the royal family will be coming in to deal with this crisis, crisis have never seen before. but they know this case has got to be settled, it's got to be dealt with now, it can't be allowed to linger because the only thing that is worse than having prince andrew in the situation he is and already has actually to have him start to deal with the allegations in public. whether that is on video, and depositions, which is the process in america, orwhether live depositions, which is the process in america, or whether live in court. either way, the details of this case are going to be appalling and i

think of course prince andrew has no way to go, he is effectively a dead man walking as far as the royal family is concerned. but the one thing he can do is to accept the responsibility, accept the blame, except he has to fall on his sword for the sake of the wider royal family. it is in that context i think there is a constitutional crisis. ~ , think there is a constitutional crisis. . , , ., ., crisis. we must remember in all of this prince — crisis. we must remember in all of this prince andrew _ crisis. we must remember in all of this prince andrew denies - crisis. we must remember in all of this prince andrew denies the i this prince andrew denies the allegations, he has denied the allegations, he has denied the allegations and yet you say his tactic and the tactic of his lawyers has to be for him to avoid having to give evidence at this trial at all costs. i give evidence at this trial at all costs. ~ ., �* , give evidence at this trial at all costs. ~ . �* , ., costs. i think that's right and i think the problem _ costs. i think that's right and i think the problem here i costs. i think that's right and i think the problem here is i costs. i think that's right and i think the problem here is the | think the problem here is the risk is so high. of course prince andrew is so high. of course prince andrew is entirely innocent, it's a civil matter not a criminal matter. we know that the met police have

decided not to prosecute the complaints made by virginia giuffre. he is in the same position as any other defendant. but what we are talking about here is the real politics. the practical reality and on the one hand you have prince andrew who is facing these accusations and he has declined thus far to engage with the merits of that. he has taken every proper legal point that is open to him and indeed there is some merit in the legal points which he has let up on here, namely that his claim was settled between virginia giuffre and jeffrey epstein in that contract. but it's not a slam dunk. there is a lot of risk attached to that under no circumstances the only thing you can really do is to stop things getting worse. and essentially whether he denies it or not, he is going to have to buy this case off.

he cannot allow this to descend into the detail of the sort of things he is alleged to have done with a i7—year—old and also the potential for him being lampooned about his inability to sweat and going to pizzaexpress, all of those things, the things that have been circulating on social media tonight or today, will come out and will attack its credibility and a really fundamental way. thank you, mark. now our other story main story this hour. the prime minister has for the first time admitted he attended a drinks party in the number 10 garden during the first lockdown. let's head over to downing street

and my colleague ben brown. the prime minister has confirmed he was at a drinks party in the garden of number 10 during the first lockdown and apologised for attending. breaking days of silence over the matter, borisjohnson said he believed the gathering was a work event and that, in hindsight, he should have sent everyone back inside. at the time, in may 2020, across the uk, meeting more than one person from outside your household was not allowed. but it's claimed more than 30 people attended the bring your own booze event. but it's claimed more than 30 people attended the bring your own booze event. labour leader keir starmer says mrjohnson should "do the decent thing and resign". our political correspondent jonathan blake reports on a dramatic pmqs. did you lie about the parties, prime minister? are you going to apologise?

emerging to face the fury — borisjohnson left number 10 this morning and headed to the house of commons after revelations about a 'bring your own booze' gathering in the downing street garden during lockdown. what would he say, what could he say to answer the challenge from his opponents — was he there? — and ease the anger among his own mps. mr speaker, i want to apologise. i know that millions of people across this country have made extraordinary sacrifices over the last 18 months. i know the anguish they have been through, unable to mourn their relatives, unable to live their lives as they want or to do the things they love. and i know the rage they feel with me and with the government i lead, when they think that in downing street itself the rules are not being properly followed by the people who make the rules. and though i cannot anticipate the conclusions of the current inquiry, i have learned enough to know that there were things

we simply did not get right. and i must take responsibility. after the apology, an admission that he did attend. an explanation that he believed it was a work event, but also and an acceptance that others wouldn't see it that way. well, there we have it. after months of deceit and deception, the pathetic spectacle of a man who has run out of road _ his defence that he did not realise he was at a party... is so ridiculous that it's actually offensive to the british public. he has finally been forced to admit what everyone knew — that when the whole country was locked down, he was hosting boozy parties in downing street. is he now going to do the decent thing and resign?

i appreciate the point that he is making about the event i attended. i want to repeat that i thought it was a work event and i regret... i regret very much that we did not do things differently that evening. the labour leader accused the prime minister of changing his story, and worse. can't the prime minister see why the british public think he is lying through his teeth? mr speaker, it is up to the right honourable gentleman to choose how he conducts himself in this place. and he is wrong, he is wrong. on the 20th of may 2020, downing st staff were invited to socially distanced drinks in the garden of number ten — "bring your own booze" said an email from a senior official.

the event is one of several in 2020 being investigated. on the 15th of may, the prime minister and staff were pictured with cheese and wine in the downing street garden. borisjohnson said they were working at the time. a month later, on the 15th of december, when social mixing was banned indoors, a christmas quiz was held for number 10 staff with a photo showing borisjohnson taking part. and on the 18th of december, claims of a party inside downing street, which the prime minister's then press secretary was later seenjoking about in a mock news briefing. opposition parties are now united in their call for borisjohnson to go. will the prime minister finally do the decent thing and resign? or will his tory mps be forced to show him the door? will the prime minister, - for the good of the country accept that the party is overl and decide to resign? some may be making light of the situation.

but for borisjohnson, it could hardly be more serious. we have had that apology from boris johnson and now the question of the reaction of his fellow conservative mps. it is understood he went on to the commons tearoom to shore up support from conservative mps. it is now understood that the leader of the scottish conservatives douglas rossis the scottish conservatives douglas ross is calling for borisjohnson to resign. this is quite a significant intervention? breaking just in the last few minutes that douglas frost is saying that the prime minister should stand down. he is making those comments reluctantly, i understand,

down. he is making those comments reluctantly, iunderstand, but down. he is making those comments reluctantly, i understand, but will remember that douglas ross said yesterday that if boris johnson remember that douglas ross said yesterday that if borisjohnson had a tent at that event in downing street then he would have to go. and to the prime minister's admission today that he was there, even though he says it was a workplace activity, mr ross has decided that he is sticking by that line. so within the last few minutes, the scottish tory leader, who is still an mp and as a seatin leader, who is still an mp and as a seat in this place, has called for the prime minister to resign and the first person to come out and say that explicitly since that statement just before prime minister's questions. more broadly, there are some that share that view, some privately who are saying similar things, they do think it's coming to the end of the road for the prime minister, that they don't think that he this is something he will be able to explain away. others are saying that they must wait for the report from sue gray, the civil servant looking into it, before they draw their own conclusions.—

looking into it, before they draw their own conclusions. thank you very much- _ jackie green's mother died of covid in december 2020, and she is a member of the covid—i9 bereaved families forjustice group — shejoins me now. thank you for being with us. what is reaction to what the prime minister said in the commons today, that he thought it was a work event and that with hindsight he shouldn't have been there. he has issued what he said was a heartfelt apology, you accepted that apology? h0. said was a heartfelt apology, you accepted that apology?— said was a heartfelt apology, you accepted that apology? no, i don't. i think the apology was completely insincere. he was backed into a corner had no other option, really, than to apologise because he has lied to and evaded questions repeatedly and we're now onto the stage where an apology was his only recourse. the fact that he said he

thought it was a work event and also believed that it was within a covid rules is absolute nonsense. the leaked e—mail that went to around 100 people makes it obvious that it wasn't a work event when they're talking about, let's enjoy the lovely weather and bring your own booze. just a totally hollow, hollow apology. booze. just a totally hollow, hollow a rrolo . �* booze. just a totally hollow, hollow a-rolo . �* ~ , booze. just a totally hollow, hollow a-rolo .�* ~ , apology. and the prime minister said in the comments, _ apology. and the prime minister said in the comments, he _ apology. and the prime minister said in the comments, he understands i apology. and the prime minister said | in the comments, he understands the rage that people around the country are feeling. do you think he does understand? ii are feeling. do you think he does understand?— are feeling. do you think he does understand? if he did, he wouldn't behave in the _ understand? if he did, he wouldn't behave in the way _ understand? if he did, he wouldn't behave in the way that _ understand? if he did, he wouldn't behave in the way that he - understand? if he did, he wouldn't behave in the way that he has i understand? if he did, he wouldn't behave in the way that he has and | understand? if he did, he wouldn't i behave in the way that he has and he wouldn't allow his government and his staff to behave in the way that they have. he has no idea. at the time of this party, the 20th of may,

my mum has been isolating, i haven't seen her since the beginning of march, my birthday is around that time and i would have loved to have gone out to see her but i couldn't do that because we weren't allowed to. so no, he absolutely doesn't understand what people are going through and how angry they are. thank you very much. we have heard from dominic cummings, by the way, who was the chief adviser to the prime minister, he said that no way was that event technically within the rules for a work event. you are watching bbc news. time for a look at the weather. we are in a pretty quiet, settled

weather pattern for the foreseeable, dominated by high pressure, so many places will stay dry. it will be a little milder across scotland and northern ireland but further south, coat with cooler air looming. frost and fog will be a problem for some. many places will stay dry and will see sunshine like this afternoon, plenty of sunshine in england and wales. but more cloud in the west of scotland. slightly milder moving off the atlantic, so 12 will be the high. overnight, it stays largely dry and settled. it will start to see and fog patches developing across england and wales, this becoming more extensive than we have seenin becoming more extensive than we have seen in the last few nights. a cold night to come, widespread frost in towns and cities. further north,

milder air, towns and cities. further north, milderair, more towns and cities. further north, milder air, more of a breeze, so less cold. into thursday, this area of high pressure dominates, more weather fronts of high pressure dominates, more weatherfronts and more isobars across the far north of the uk, so thick cloud, the odd spot of rain but most places dry. elsewhere, after that foggy start across england and wales, we should see sunshine. the fog may linger in places through the day and if it does, it will feel chilly, temperature struggling to get above freezing. in the sunshine, up to 8 degrees, plant or again across the north of the uk. a similar pattern for friday, the mildest heir to the north of the uk and high pressure so a lot of unsettled weather. but more of a breeze and cloud once again. elsewhere, chilly start, the fog will be extensive and perhaps lingering throughout the day in some places and if it does, it will feel quite chilly and grey. but in the

sunshine, temperatures are pushing up sunshine, temperatures are pushing up to 7 degrees. double figure values for the north of scotland, again. through the week, most places dominated by high pressure so staying dry and settled, fork in the mornings and the chance of patchy rain in the north.

this is bbc news, i'm reeta chakrabarti. the headlines: the duke of york will face a civil trial over allegations he sexually assaulted virginia giuffre when she was underage after a us judge ruled her lawsuit against him can proceed. he has consistently denied the allegations against him. andrew has got no good options now. he cant— andrew has got no good options now. he can't make things better so essentially i think he is either going — essentially i think he is either going to — essentially i think he is either going to have to engage in the trial process— going to have to engage in the trial process or— going to have to engage in the trial process or he is going to have to settle _ process or he is going to have to settle. �* w' ., process or he is going to have to settle. �* w ., ., process or he is going to have to settle. �* ., ., .,, process or he is going to have to settle. �* ., ., settle. buckingham palace has said it will not comment _ settle. buckingham palace has said it will not comment on _ settle. buckingham palace has said it will not comment on an - settle. buckingham palace has said it will not comment on an ongoing l it will not comment on an ongoing legal matter. our other main story. pressure is growing on the prime minister despite apologising after admitting he attended a drinks gathering

in the downing street garden during lockdown. i certainly wish that things had happened differently on the evening of may the 20th. and i apologise for all misjudgments that have been made, for which i take full responsibility. despite the apology, the prime minister was urged to resign. when the whole country was locked down, he was hosting boozy parties in downing street. is he now going to do the decent thing and resign? do the decent thing and resign. or will his tory mps be forced to show him the door? - prince andrew will have to face

a civil case in the us over allegations that he sexually assaulted a i7—yea—old girl, virginia giuffre. an attempt by the prince's legal team to have the case dismissed has today been rejected by a usjudge. the duke of york's lawyers had argued that ms guiffre had waived her right to sue under a previous settlement agreement with jeffrey epstein. she alleges that epstein trafficked her to have sex with several people, including the duke. prince andrew strenuously denies all the allegations made against him. it's alleged she was sexually abused by the prince on three occasions. virginia giuffre claims it happened in new york, london and on a private

island in the caribbean. prince andrew has consistently denied the allegations. this report from nicholas witchell. so, what does he do now and what does the royal family do with him? after months during which andrew tried first to ignore the case and then to avoid court papers being served on him and having finally appointed us lawyers to try to get the case dismissed, he finds himself facing some stark choices. his motion to get the case dismissed, having failed, andrew's options amount to this. he can settle out of court — there would be no admission of liability but he would pay a perhaps substantial sum to virginia giuffre. he can default, that is ignore the court case and, by default, there would be a finding against him. finally, he could fight it out in court. he would have to give

a deposition under oath, the rival stories would be tested, the matter would be decided in open court. lawyers who have been following the case say none of the options will be attractive to him. andrew's got no good options now. he can't make things better, so essentially, i think he's either going to have to engage in the trial process or he's going to have to settle, and that may well be his least—worst option. and then there's the question of andrew's future within the royal family. ten years ago, at the time of the queen's diamond jubilee, andrew was very much in evidence. much has happened in the years since and most of it, in the case of andrew, has been deeply embarrassing for the royal family. in his newsnight interview, the one in which he said he couldn't remember meeting with the then i7—year—old in virginia giuffre, andrew was asked whether he felt he had damaged the queen and the royal family. i don't believe it's been damaging to the queen at all. it has to me. if i were in a position to be able to answer all these questions in a way which gave sensible answers, other than the ones that i've given, that gave closure, i'd love it, but i'm afraid i can't

because i am just as much in the dark as many people. yet for all of andrew's denials of wrongdoing, might this be the time for him to withdraw entirely from public life? he has retained some positions, he's colonel of the grenadier guards, for example. behind the scenes, there's unease, a feeling that, in this of all years, the year of the queen's platinum jubilee, it would be preferable for her second son to recognise that, as he said in the newsnight interview, he's let the side down and that he should therefore bow out gracefully and completely. joining me now is our north america correspondent nada tawfik. i don't think it came as a surprise

to those of us who followed the hearing last week because the judge took a very tough position in that hearing as well and was not convinced by prince andrew's lawyers arguments and in this decision he said he denied in all respects prince andrew's arguments to dismiss the case. right from the start he talked about what a high bar needed to be met year. he says this court must accept as true all well pleaded factual allegations in the complaint and throw all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them in light most favourable to the plaintiff so most favourable to the plaintiff so most plaintiff to virginia giuffre. he is saying this 2009 agreement was just way too ambiguous on one hand and on the other hand that it was up to the parties themselves, so virginia giuffre and jeffrey epstein to enforce the contract. he says there is no clear intent or purpose

to the contract to directly or substantially benefit prince andrew. so therefore this is a really strongly worded decision against prince andrew in this case will go forward. ., , ., , ., ,, forward. people we have been talking to have suggested _ forward. people we have been talking to have suggested prince _ forward. people we have been talking to have suggested prince andrew i forward. people we have been talking| to have suggested prince andrew does have a small chance of being able to appeal but what are the chances of him asking to appeal successfully? that's right. normally in court motions to dismiss by default, you are not able to appeal. the case goes forward until its conclusion and then can be appealed to a higher court. but in theory there is a small chance that prince andrew's lawyers could issue an interlocutory appeal. what's important to remember but that is that they need the judge's position —— permission to even put that appeal forward. given how strongly the judge worded this

decision leaving no room for interpretation, it's unclear he would allow that. that appeal is usually used in situation where the judge thought there was a tough decision that he was facing and it could have gone either way. in this case he really seems to be very clear on his position. nevertheless they can try for that appeal. we are waiting to see if that is a route the prince's lawyers will take because his options at the moment are not looking great. regs because his options at the moment are not looking great. $5 a because his options at the moment are not looking great.— are not looking great. as a pay in their reaction _ are not looking great. as a pay in their reaction to _ are not looking great. as a pay in their reaction to this _ are not looking great. as a pay in their reaction to this ruling? i are not looking great. as a pay in their reaction to this ruling? -- l their reaction to this ruling? -- reaction- _ their reaction to this ruling? -- reaction- we — their reaction to this ruling? » reaction. we have not had any reaction. we have not had any reaction from virginia giuffre or prince andrew yet. but from those who have been following the case there has been no surprise that this was the route the judge was going to take. the key question now is what prince andrew does and he has three

key options with neither being of real benefit. our royal correspondent johnny dymond is here. the duke of york denies the allegations and always has. but the consensus seems to be that he needs to avoid at all costs having to appear in court. i think that's fair- the _ appear in court. i think that's fair. the consensus - appear in court. i think that's fair. the consensus is - appear in court. i think that's fair. the consensus is from i appear in court. i think that's i fair. the consensus is from lawyers i have been speaking to is thatjust the process of this trial going forward will be immensely difficult forward will be immensely difficult for him to navigate and immensely challenging for his reputation. so nearly everyone has been saying he's got to settle. it takes two to tango

on a settlement, it's not up to prince andrew to say i'm settling here is the money. virginia giuffre and her lawyers will need to agree and her lawyers will need to agree and it may be that she is not interested injust and it may be that she is not interested in just money. and it may be that she is not interested injust money. maybe and it may be that she is not interested in just money. maybe she wants more than that. maybe she wants more than that. maybe she wants the trial itself or some kind of admission from him. we don't know. but certainly the cool heads amongst the us legal profession and on the side of the atlantic are saying he does not want to go through the process of trial partly because of the pre—trial discovery phase which is where he can be compelled to give testimony in a us debt position which is where they can. humans from him, his diaries, evidence about whether or not he sweats or not... evidence about whether or not he sweats or not. . ._ sweats or not... would that be ublic? sweats or not... would that be public? it _ sweats or not... would that be public? it would _ sweats or not... would that be public? it would become i sweats or not... would that be | public? it would become public durinr public? it would become public during the _ public? it would become public during the trial _ public? it would become public during the trial and _ public? it would become public during the trial and staff- public? it would become public during the trial and staff leaks| during the trial and staff leaks from different legal parties in

these cases. these cases do get slapped out in public through informal means. that would be horrible for him. then the trial itself, the idea that the queen's second son is going to turn up in the us courtroom as fantastical but if he doesn't he loses anyway. if he does it would be one of the most astonishing moments in the royal family's modern history. we have no word from prince andrew's legal team yet. i imagine they are trying to work out how badly wrong this has gone because let's not forget nearly every step of the way this has gone wrong for the prince. he tried at first to say he had not been served the papers. the usjudge said that was not insolence. then he came up with the 2009 deal which has been dismissed. he must be thinking about the advice he has been receiving from his lawyers so far and thinking very quickly about what his next move will be. 50

very quickly about what his next move will be.— very quickly about what his next move will be. , , , ., move will be. so there is this small window for — move will be. so there is this small window for potential _ move will be. so there is this small window for potential appeal - move will be. so there is this small window for potential appeal that i window for potential appeal that people seem to think that because the judge people seem to think that because thejudge ruled people seem to think that because the judge ruled so strongly against him probably as chances are slim. in which case should he wish to come to some sort of settlement with virginia giuffre, that has to happen pretty quickly because the exchange of information on either side is an ongoing process. the of information on either side is an ongoing process-— ongoing process. the discovery -rocess ongoing process. the discovery process is _ ongoing process. the discovery process is ongoing. _ ongoing process. the discovery process is ongoing. it - ongoing process. the discovery process is ongoing. it may i ongoing process. the discovery process is ongoing. it may wellj ongoing process. the discovery i process is ongoing. it may well be that his legal team have received the first list of requests from her legal team. the request for medical information, travel information, deposition. they might be thinking about that now. you can have settlement at any point before the trial actually happens but if you are going to do it you might as well try and do it early and you might as well try and do an agreement which is watertight. we are in strange territory now for the queen's second

son. it is a very unhappy position he finds himself in. it's notjust this trial either because of course people are talking about the company he has kept up to this point. friends with a convicted be there for and close friends with glenn maxwell who has been convicted of child six trafficking. it is an unhappy place for the prince. buckingham palace has said simply that it will not comment on an ongoing legal matter.- that it will not comment on an ongoing legal matter. they have been barely commenting _ ongoing legal matter. they have been barely commenting on _ ongoing legal matter. they have been barely commenting on any _ ongoing legal matter. they have been barely commenting on any aspect i ongoing legal matter. they have been barely commenting on any aspect of l barely commenting on any aspect of his life now since he withdrew from the royal duties. but obviously this does hang over the royal family. it hangs over the platinum jubilee and the queen personally and professionally. she has devoted seven decades to maintaining this institution in relatively high

respect amongst a large proportion of people in the uk and now this shadow isjust all over of people in the uk and now this shadow is just all over it. it's an extraordinary time. there is this narrow window where basically— there is this narrow window where basically a — there is this narrow window where basically a ruling goes against the defendant halfway through the case and whether or not new york's equivalent of the court of appeal will actually entertain and review what _ will actually entertain and review what the — will actually entertain and review what the judge has said. on face value _ what the judge has said. on face value looking at this ruling today from _ value looking at this ruling today from the — value looking at this ruling today from the judge in manhattan, it's looking _ from the judge in manhattan, it's looking like that's going to be pretty— looking like that's going to be pretty tough. what he says line by line is _ pretty tough. what he says line by line is effectively the prince had no case — line is effectively the prince had no case of— line is effectively the prince had no case of merit at all on many of his points — no case of merit at all on many of his points so _ no case of merit at all on many of his points so it's not as if they

were — his points so it's not as if they were something ambiguous and you might— were something ambiguous and you might have read it wrong. one example — might have read it wrong. one example he gives is he goes into deep _ example he gives is he goes into deep detail about what florida law says about what a con trick should be. says about what a con trick should be the _ says about what a con trick should be. the reason why that matters is because _ be. the reason why that matters is because the settlement agreement upon which the duke of york's team were hanging this motion to dismiss was signed — were hanging this motion to dismiss was signed and sealed under florida law effectively ending a case before a florida _ law effectively ending a case before a florida court. what the judge in manhattan is saying is if the prince wanted _ manhattan is saying is if the prince wanted to— manhattan is saying is if the prince wanted to use that in this case the language _ wanted to use that in this case the language in that deal between jeffrey— language in that deal between jeffrey epstein and virginia giuffre would _ jeffrey epstein and virginia giuffre would have to be unambiguous about who else _ would have to be unambiguous about who else was covered by it. it simply— who else was covered by it. it simply does not do that and that is set out _ simply does not do that and that is set out in — simply does not do that and that is set out in case law going back many years _ set out in case law going back many years. another thing he says which is interesting, is that one of the other— is interesting, is that one of the other grounds the duke's lawyers presented to the courts was the particular— presented to the courts was the particular law that virginia giuffre is using _ particular law that virginia giuffre is using to — particular law that virginia giuffre is using to bring this damages claim 20 years— is using to bring this damages claim 20 years after the alleged events,

they were — 20 years after the alleged events, they were arguing it was unconstitutional because it breached his rights— unconstitutional because it breached his rights as a defendant and the judge _ his rights as a defendant and the judge absolutely demolishes that at the end _ judge absolutely demolishes that at the end of this report and says this attack— the end of this report and says this attack on _ the end of this report and says this attack on the constitution reality of this— attack on the constitution reality of this victim's act is completely without— of this victim's act is completely without merit, his case lacks persuasive legal authority. that is judicial— persuasive legal authority. that is judicial language for effectively taking — judicial language for effectively taking the case and checking it out the window. it's that strong this ruling _ the window. it's that strong this ruling against the prince. what sort of window do _ ruling against the prince. what sort of window do the _ ruling against the prince. what sort of window do the duke's _ ruling against the prince. what sort of window do the duke's lawyers i ruling against the prince. what sort i of window do the duke's lawyers have to appeal and would they have to appeal and a point of law? then;r to appeal and would they have to appeal and a point of law? they have to a- eal appeal and a point of law? they have to appeal on — appeal and a point of law? they have to appeal on the _ appeal and a point of law? they have to appeal on the point _ appeal and a point of law? they have to appeal on the point of _ appeal and a point of law? they have to appeal on the point of low - appeal and a point of law? they have to appeal on the point of low as i i to appeal on the point of low as i understand it. the question is whether— understand it. the question is whether they can. i think it's looking — whether they can. i think it's looking very difficult on this at the moment based on the amount of detail— the moment based on the amount of detail on— the moment based on the amount of detail on the low which is in this. of course, — detail on the low which is in this. of course, the next thing that happens — of course, the next thing that happens which will crystallise minds

is this— happens which will crystallise minds is this phase we are entering, we are getting — is this phase we are entering, we are getting into this discovery phase — are getting into this discovery phase where there is this tight timetable which has been set by the judge _ timetable which has been set by the judge for— timetable which has been set by the judge for discovery. two things have to happen _ judge for discovery. two things have to happen. virginia giuffre's has sent— to happen. virginia giuffre's has sent a _ to happen. virginia giuffre's has sent a list— to happen. virginia giuffre's has sent a list of questions to the duke of york's_ sent a list of questions to the duke of york's lawyers demanding action -- answers— of york's lawyers demanding action —— answers to various things he said of the _ —— answers to various things he said of the defence. one of them for instances — of the defence. one of them for instances they want proof of this what _ instances they want proof of this what he — instances they want proof of this what he told newsnight that he can't sweat _ what he told newsnight that he can't sweat or _ what he told newsnight that he can't sweat or couldn't sweat at the time that they— sweat or couldn't sweat at the time that they met 20 years ago. if you recall. _ that they met 20 years ago. if you recall. that — that they met 20 years ago. if you recall, that was a key part of difference and testimony between virginia _ difference and testimony between virginia giuffre and the prince. she says she _ virginia giuffre and the prince. she says she remembers him sweating profusely— says she remembers him sweating profusely as they danced in a nightclub. he said at the time he had a _ nightclub. he said at the time he had a medical condition which meant he could _ had a medical condition which meant he could not sweat. they have asked for evidence —

he could not sweat. they have asked for evidence of that through the discovery— for evidence of that through the discovery of evidence. so far the have _ discovery of evidence. so far the have not— discovery of evidence. so far the have not answered that that they are now going _ have not answered that that they are now going to have to respond. whether— now going to have to respond. whether or not they get an appeal under— whether or not they get an appeal underway — whether or not they get an appeal under way. all that is also the apparent _ under way. all that is also the apparent trip to pizzaexpress in woking — apparent trip to pizzaexpress in woking. the team has to deal with those _ woking. the team has to deal with those questions as part of discovery and even _ those questions as part of discovery and even if— those questions as part of discovery and even if they do get an appeal under— and even if they do get an appeal under way— and even if they do get an appeal under way unless they get an appeal under— under way unless they get an appeal under way— under way unless they get an appeal under way and there is an post the rest of— under way and there is an post the rest of the — under way and there is an post the rest of the case. joining us is the former chief prosecutor for the north west of england, and specialist in sexual abuse cases, nazir afzal. a strongly worded ruling from the judge and certainly the consensus appears to be that the prince's chances of a successful appeal are probably quite slim. would you concur with that?—

concur with that? absolutely. i endorse what _ concur with that? absolutely. i endorse what all _ concur with that? absolutely. i endorse what all three - concur with that? absolutely. i endorse what all three of- concur with that? absolutely. i endorse what all three of your| endorse what all three of your correspondence have said. there was a small window of opportunity which he took. thejudge has been scathing i think in dismissing these applications that have been made by prince andrew's team. they really can be no argument that would go on an appeal given how the judge wasn't in any way confused or he didn't think anything was biased. he made it clear the arguments put forward by prince andrew's lawyers had next to zero merit and the idea of an appeal is far—fetched. you to zero merit and the idea of an appeal is far-fetched.— appeal is far-fetched. you have prosecuted _ appeal is far-fetched. you have prosecuted many _ appeal is far-fetched. you have prosecuted many sexual - appeal is far-fetched. you have prosecuted many sexual abuse | appeal is far-fetched. you have i prosecuted many sexual abuse cases. just speaking generally, the sort of tactics, are these the sort of tactics, are these the sort of tactics that are used? unfortunately s. an tactics that are used? unfortunately 5- any defence _ tactics that are used? unfortunately s. any defence lawyer _ tactics that are used? unfortunately s. any defence lawyer with - tactics that are used? unfortunately s. any defence lawyer with the i tactics that are used? unfortunately 5. any defence lawyer with the salt | 5. any defence lawyer with the salt has to make sure their client is

properly defended and that includes legal technicalities, making sure the other side meet their requirements in terms of disclosure. so i have no doubt that the team are doing everything they possibly can. the reality is the lower new york has been applied properly, thejudge has been applied properly, thejudge has upheld the applications made in the last hearing and we now have this period where disclosure needs to happen and after that potentially a trial in the autumn. there is nothing unusual about this. this happens regrettably day in, day out. it's just the high happens regrettably day in, day out. it'sjust the high profile happens regrettably day in, day out. it's just the high profile of the defendant that makes it more interesting to others. but prince andrew had his opportunity and took advantage of all of the technicalities available and the judge has been scathing in his dismissal of those applications.

prince andrew has always denied the allegations and he could have his day in court. but his defenders would say that he is prince andrew and this would then turn into what you've just called a high—profile case. it would be a sensational trial if that happened. the americans _ trial if that happened. the americans show _ trial if that happened. the americans show less - trial if that happened. tue americans show less deference trial if that happened. tte americans show less deference to high—profile figures. historically, they have prosecuted ceos of companies and people close to presidents and so on. they have less deference. we have more difficulty in doing so. absolutely, it would be a media circus. all of which the prince would want to avoid. i have

no doubt their legal team will be thinking about a settlement but it takes two to tango and if virginia giuffre does not want to settle she will get their opportunity for her day in court. we will get their opportunity for her day in court-— will get their opportunity for her day in court. we have yet to hear an hinu day in court. we have yet to hear anything from — day in court. we have yet to hear anything from virginia _ day in court. we have yet to hear anything from virginia giuffre's l anything from virginia giuffre's legal team. anything from virginia giuffre's legalteam. knowing anything from virginia giuffre's legal team. knowing you yourself has beenin legal team. knowing you yourself has been in that sort of situation, what would you be doing?— would you be doing? following the rocess. would you be doing? following the process- the _ would you be doing? following the process. the prince's _ would you be doing? following the process. the prince's team - would you be doing? following the process. the prince's team will - process. the prince's team will have to answer a lot of questions about the interview he gave to the bbc and other things, all of these things have to be addressed before the trial. as far as virginia giuffre's legal team are concerned that they will follow a process and make sure every question is asked and answered and if it isn't answered they will

bring it to the judge who can order it to be answered. part bring it to the judge who can order it to be answered.— it to be answered. part of the case we have heard _ it to be answered. part of the case we have heard from _ it to be answered. part of the case we have heard from prince - it to be answered. part of the case i we have heard from prince andrew's team has been to point out certain inconsistencies in virginia giuffre's case. speaking from your wider experience, would you say that can be quite common? tier? wider experience, would you say that can be quite common? very common. when the trial — can be quite common? very common. when the trial first _ can be quite common? very common. when the trial first started _ can be quite common? very common. when the trial first started people - when the trial first started people were concerned that prosecutors were not doing a good job and there was inconsistency in the evidence but thatis inconsistency in the evidence but that is the nature of sexual abuse. victims are inconsistent. they don't remember the dates when things happened. as you and i wouldn't be able to. it doesn't necessarily have to be consistent. strange as it may sound inconsistency suggests truth actually, that people don't

necessarily remember the details in the way they did because of the trauma they suffered. it's nothing unusual i'm afraid. courts generally are able to deal with it.— are able to deal with it. thank you so much. there've been fresh calls for the prime minister to resign — after he apologised and confirmed he was at a drinks party in the garden of number ten, during the first lockdown in 2020. breaking days of silence over the matter, borisjohnson said he believed the gathering was a work event and that, in hindsight, he should have sent everyone back inside. at the time, across the uk,

meeting more than one person from outside your household for a social reason was not allowed. but it's claimed more than 30 people attended the 'bring your own booze' event. labour leader keir starmer responded by saying mrjohnson should "do the decent thing and resign". and in the last hour, the leader of the scottish conservatives, douglas ross, called on the prime minister to quit. our political correspondent jonathan blake reports. did you lie about the parties, prime minister? are you going to apologise? emerging to face the fury — borisjohnson left number 10 this morning and headed to the house of commons after revelations about a 'bring your own booze' gathering in the downing street garden during lockdown. what would he say, what could he say to answer the challenge

from his opponents — was he there? — and ease the anger among his own mps. mr speaker, i want to apologise. i know that millions of people across this country have made extraordinary sacrifices over the last 18 months. i know the anguish they have been through, unable to mourn their relatives, unable to live their lives as they want or to do the things they love. and i know the rage they feel with me and with the government i lead, when they think that in downing street itself the rules are not being properly followed by the people who make the rules. and though i cannot anticipate the conclusions of the current inquiry, i have learned enough to know that there were things we simply did not get right. and i must take responsibility.

after the apology, an admission that he did attend. an explanation that he believed it was a work event, but also and an acceptance that others wouldn't see it that way. well, there we have it. after months of deceit and deception, the pathetic spectacle of a man who has run out of road _ his defence that he did not realise he was at a party... is so ridiculous that it's actually offensive to the british public. he has finally been forced to admit what everyone knew — that when the whole country was locked down, he was hosting boozy parties in downing street. is he now going to do the decent thing and resign? i appreciate the point that he is making about the event i attended. i want to repeat that i thought

it was a work event and i regret... i regret very much that we did not do things differently that evening. the labour leader accused the prime minister of changing his story, and worse. can't the prime minister see why the british public think he is lying through his teeth? mr speaker, it is up to the right honourable gentleman to choose how he conducts himself in this place. and he is wrong, he is wrong. on the 20th of may 2020, downing st staff were invited to socially distanced drinks in the garden of number ten — "bring your own booze" said an email from a senior official. the event is one of several in 2020 being investigated. on the 15th of may, the prime minister and staff were pictured with cheese and wine in the downing street garden. borisjohnson said they were working at the time.

a month later, on the 15th of december, when social mixing was banned indoors, a christmas quiz was held for number 10 staff with a photo showing borisjohnson taking part. and on the 18th of december, claims of a party inside downing street, which the prime minister's then press secretary was later seenjoking about in a mock news briefing. opposition parties are now united in their call for borisjohnson to go. will the prime minister finally do the decent thing and resign? or will his tory mps be forced to show him the door? will the prime minister, - for the good of the country accept that the party is overl and decide to resign? some may be making light of the situation. but for borisjohnson it could hardly be more serious. jonathan blake, bbc news.

i'm joined now byjournalist and former conservative press officer, jo—anne nadler. kier starmer was saying that boris johnson's run out of road, do you think he has? t johnson's run out of road, do you think he has?— think he has? i think his position is very perilous _ think he has? i think his position is very perilous and _ think he has? i think his position is very perilous and i _ think he has? i think his position is very perilous and i think - think he has? i think his position | is very perilous and i think people come down to whether or not conservative mps calculate that borisjohnson is more of a liability to his party than he is an asset. i think it's always been baked in to one's acknowledgement of the strengths and weaknesses of boris johnson that he has an eccentric, that he is rather casual and cavalier, but up to this point, i think people have felt he had a certain quality that seemed to reach out to people that perhaps other conservatives couldn't, and therefore he has been treated quite liberally. but i think that is really turning now and he is hanging

on by his fingertips. what really turning now and he is hanging on by his fingertips.— on by his fingertips. what do you think will be — on by his fingertips. what do you think will be the _ on by his fingertips. what do you think will be the reaction - on by his fingertips. what do you think will be the reaction of- on by his fingertips. what do you think will be the reaction of tory| think will be the reaction of tory mps to what they heard a prime minister's questions, when they heard that apology? we gather that after prime minister's questions, mr johnson went to the commons tearoom to try and shore up his support with the tory backbenchers but what will they be thinking? will they be checking what their constituents think before they decide? t checking what their constituents think before they decide? i think that's exactly — think before they decide? i think that's exactly it, _ think before they decide? i think that's exactly it, they'll - think before they decide? i think that's exactly it, they'll want - think before they decide? i think that's exactly it, they'll want to l that's exactly it, they'll want to be hearing what their party members and constituents are saying to them and constituents are saying to them and making this calculation as to whether or not of borisjohnson can somehow come back yet again and relaunch himself and sell himself to the party and the wider country as an asset or whether, frankly, that's now run out and the party would be better off without him as the leader of. t better off without him as the leader of. , , , ., , better off without him as the leader of. , .,�* ., ., of. i suppose you don't have to apologise _ of. i suppose you don't have to apologise today _ of. i suppose you don't have to apologise today in _ of. i suppose you don't have to apologise today in the - of. i suppose you don't have to i apologise today in the commons of. i suppose you don't have to - apologise today in the commons but chose to do so, do you think that

was at least to buy him a little bit more time? t’m was at least to buy him a little bit more time?— was at least to buy him a little bit more time? �* ., , ., more time? i'm not sure i agree with ou that more time? i'm not sure i agree with you that he — more time? i'm not sure i agree with you that he didn't _ more time? i'm not sure i agree with you that he didn't have _ more time? i'm not sure i agree with you that he didn't have to _ you that he didn't have to apologise, i think he absolutely did, and one of the reasons why he had to apologise today is because he and his team, it seems to me, have been totally inept and how they handle inquiries around not only that but all the other parties and other alleged gatherings that we've been hearing about since before christmas. and i think had he sought to clarify the situation much earlier on, he mightn't now be in the situation he is. and in saying that, i'm not trying to dismiss the seriousness of what is alleged to have happened or what in fact has turned, but also to say somehow they'll made the situation worse politically by being so evasive in facing up to the many inquiries there had been.— facing up to the many inquiries there had been. he's still saying this was a _ there had been. he's still saying this was a work— there had been. he's still saying

this was a work event, _ there had been. he's still saying l this was a work event, discovering in the garden in may of 2020 here in downing street. dominic his former aide, said there is no way it was a work event, it was social event, there is no way it was in within the rules. t there is no way it was in within the rules. ~ ., ., , rules. i think what we have here is -la in: rules. i think what we have here is playing with _ rules. i think what we have here is playing with words _ rules. i think what we have here is playing with words and _ rules. i think what we have here is playing with words and trying - rules. i think what we have here is playing with words and trying to i playing with words and trying to reach some technical, legalistic definition of what constitutes a work event and what constitutes a party. insofaras work event and what constitutes a party. insofar as it doesn't appear that i was invited in without downing street, it seems that these are people working together in any case and it could be argued that sometimes he would work in the garden, given the weather, given the importance of fresh air, etc. there's probably a narrow definition by which you could call this a work of educator i think that hardly matters any more, because the prime minister's moral authority is draining away by the moment and whether or not you could technically define this gathering is a party, is

a work event, it hardly seems matter now. ,, ., y a work event, it hardly seems matter now. ,, ., , ~ , ., ., now. still, tory mps that might want to net rid now. still, tory mps that might want to get rid of— now. still, tory mps that might want to get rid of him, _ now. still, tory mps that might want to get rid of him, the _ now. still, tory mps that might want to get rid of him, the rest _ now. still, tory mps that might want to get rid of him, the rest have - now. still, tory mps that might want to get rid of him, the rest have to i to get rid of him, the rest have to be 5a of them writing letters, demanding a vote of no confidence, that's quite a sizeable number, and then there would have to be a vote of no—confidence. it's not easy to get rid of the party leader? tlat get rid of the party leader? not only that. _ get rid of the party leader? not only that. but _ get rid of the party leader? ttfrt only that, but one that is currently the prime minister. that is why i would say he is hanging on rather than already out of the door because there are lots of practical considerations around this. not least the fact that the people who might want to replace him might not feel this is the best time for them to take over. there is a living, we are told, economic problems around the corner, the possibility of inflation being as high as 77% by april, and there are also big political problems that, if you are coming into relaunch the conservative party in office, you

might want to be in your entry on the first day you arrive. so there are various reasons the party itself and the candidates themselves might not, might almost hope he hangs on and so, let's say, the may elections, and then depending on the results of those elections, that might be an elegant way for him to stand down and a little bit more time and thought given to making that transition smoother. find time and thought given to making that transition smoother.- that transition smoother. and we have had this _ that transition smoother. and we have had this apology _ that transition smoother. and we have had this apology today - that transition smoother. and we have had this apology today but i that transition smoother. and we l have had this apology today but we still have to hear the results of sue gray's inquiry, inquiries into what happened at this gathering back in may 2020 and various others as well. ,, . ., in may 2020 and various others as we[[_ ,, . ., ,, well. quite. the reference to sue gra 's well. quite. the reference to sue gray's report _ well. quite. the reference to sue gray's report and _ well. quite. the reference to sue gray's report and waiting - well. quite. the reference to sue gray's report and waiting to - well. quite. the reference to sue gray's report and waiting to hear| gray's report and waiting to hear the results of it enabled boris johnson to come to the house today and issue a fairly technical defence. and it may be that she reports more quickly than people

have anticipated, so perhaps within a week or ten days. but given the fury that this event has provoked and i think the real sense that the opposition have actually managed to secure a hit against borisjohnson here, ifeel as though it's extremely hard for him to come back and assert his authority. are perhaps not impossible but we didn't really see that energy from him today. it was an apology of sorts, it had to be said, he managed to get through pmqs, but is he really likely to be able to dominate the political scene in the next few days and convince people he is the right leader for and convince people he is the right leaderfor the and convince people he is the right leader for the country, for the party? that's quite a big ask, frankly. party? that's quite a big ask, frankl . ., ., ~ party? that's quite a big ask, frankl . ., ., ,, ., ., ,, frankly. good to talk to you, thank ou for frankly. good to talk to you, thank you for your _ frankly. good to talk to you, thank

you for your analysis. _ our political correspondent nick eardley is at central lobby and joins me live. you have been trying to take the pulse of tory mps, as has boris johnson, he went to the tea rooms to try and shore up support, to chat to them and reassure them he was still very much in a business as prime minister. what is the latest? boris johnson was _ minister. what is the latest? boris johnson was working _ minister. what is the latest? boris johnson was working the _ minister. what is the latest? br?" 3 johnson was working the room immediately after prime minister's questions but number 10 will be looking closely to see what happens over the next few hours. seven grade few loyalist dispatch to say they think borisjohnson has done the right thing but nerves in downing street will be whether the mp5 are to been saying privately that they're worried and that mrjohnson might now have to go, what they start talking publicly, and we have

had the first few elected conservative politicians breaking rank. in the last couple of hours, douglas ross, the scottish tory leader, also an mp, he was a minister until he resigned over barnard castle and dominic cummings, douglas russell said in the last hour he thinks the prime minister needs to stand down. said yesterday, if the prime — needs to stand down. said yesterday, if the prime minister _ needs to stand down. said yesterday, if the prime minister attended - needs to stand down. said yesterday, if the prime minister attended this i if the prime minister attended this event, _ if the prime minister attended this event, gathering, party, whatever you call— event, gathering, party, whatever you call it — event, gathering, party, whatever you call it on the 20th of may month last if— you call it on the 20th of may month last if he _ you call it on the 20th of may month last if he were there when the invites — last if he were there when the invites went out to more than 100 people _ invites went out to more than 100 people inviting them to bring their own booze and coming to the downing street _ own booze and coming to the downing street garden, then he couldn't continue. — street garden, then he couldn't continue, that would have been breaking — continue, that would have been breaking the rules at the time. and today— breaking the rules at the time. and today he _ breaking the rules at the time. and today he has accepted and said he was there — today he has accepted and said he was there and he has apologised for that. was there and he has apologised for that are _ was there and he has apologised for that. are crucial for me, he said, in hindsight. _ that. are crucial for me, he said, in hindsight, if you at again, he would _ in hindsight, if you at again, he would have _ in hindsight, if you at again, he would have done things differently, and that— would have done things differently, and that to me as an acceptance from the prime _ and that to me as an acceptance from the prime minister that he did wrong and therefore are to be consistent with what —

and therefore are to be consistent with what i— and therefore are to be consistent with what i can accept before, i don't _ with what i can accept before, i don't believe his position as prime minister— don't believe his position as prime minister or— don't believe his position as prime minister or leader of the conservative party is tenable and he needs _ conservative party is tenable and he needs to _ conservative party is tenable and he needs to resign. that conservative party is tenable and he needs to resign.— needs to resign. that is the first conservative _ needs to resign. that is the first conservative mp _ needs to resign. that is the first conservative mp breaking - needs to resign. that is the first conservative mp breaking rank. needs to resign. that is the first | conservative mp breaking rank to needs to resign. that is the first - conservative mp breaking rank to say that boris johnson conservative mp breaking rank to say that borisjohnson should go. i should say that the scottish conservative party, most of which is based in the scottish parliament, it seems to be an open revolt now. they seems to be an open revolt now. they seem to be several members of the scottish parliament tweeted in the last few minutes and, like douglas ross, they think that boris johnson now needs to stand down. over the next few hours, we are going to be watching to see if any other mp5 put their heads above the parapet. i heard a lot privately from mps that are worried, something borisjohnson should go. the question now is whether douglas ross�* comments lead to more mp5 feeling emboldened to come out and say they think their leader needs to stand down as prime minister. at that point, we�*re in a really serious crisis for the government. within the last couple

of hours come out and i�*m also been speaking to a borisjohnson loyalist, a government minister, conor burns, has been by mr johnson�*s site for years and known him for some time and i have been asking him how he thinks the prime minister�*s position lies tonight. i have heard reports of that, i don't know. but these questions can be answered and they should have been earlier than this. i understand why you want to ask these questions but i would simply say that sue gray is looking at the totality of this, so, with respect to the bbc and sky and itn and many of the others that i have spoken to today, i think the view of the government is that it is right and proper that sue gray is given the time to complete her inquiry into the totality of all the questions that people might want to ask — how did this event come about, who organised it, he was there — those are the things that sue gray will want to be looking at and she will report on that and that will be made public

and the prime minister will be held to account. how long will that take? i don't know, i genuinely don't know. but i think we all probably want this to be resolved sooner rather than later. what does that mean, by the end of the month? i would certainly hope that this would be behind us and that her report would be in the public domain in days, not months. so that�*s a government minister, conor burns, talking there. and the feeling this afternoon is that boris johnson gave himself a bit of time by issuing that apology, not quite getting rid of all his critics, not quite clearing things up, definitely not getting off the hook, according to many, but because he said let�*s wait for that report, there are many conservatives saying, we need to do that, we need to see what sue gray thinks. the question now is whether, now the scottish conservative leader has put his head above the parapet to say that boris johnson has put his head above the parapet to say that borisjohnson needs to 90, to say that borisjohnson needs to go, will others follow?

to say that boris johnson needs to go, will others follow? interesting, and presumably. — go, will others follow? interesting, and presumably, tory _ go, will others follow? interesting, and presumably, tory mps, - go, will others follow? interesting, and presumably, tory mps, talkingj go, will others follow? interesting, i and presumably, tory mps, talking to their constituents and party membership as well. thank you very much indeed. the deputy prime minister and justice secretary dominic rob has been answering questions about the downing street party, so let�*s have a listen to what he�*s had to say. the first question was whether he knew about the party and whether he attended. t the party and whether he attended. i was neither invited nor did i attend. ~ , , attend. the prime minister says he stumbled into _ attend. the prime minister says he stumbled into a _ attend. the prime minister says he stumbled into a gutter— attend. the prime minister says he stumbled into a gutter where - stumbled into a gutter where colleagues were chunking alcohol, they were eating picnic food, it was after 6pm, and he assumed it was a work meeting. is that credible? the prime work meeting. is that credible? tt;e: prime minister to work meeting. is that credible? tt9 prime minister to assess work meeting. is that credible? tt9: prime minister to assess might work meeting. is that credible? tt9 prime minister to assess might come to the house of commons and given a clear account, answered questions on this, he has been clear that he was acting in accordance with the rules, that he believed to be acting in accordance with the rows of the time, but promise the perception that people in power are not following the rules that is required to, particulars have been through hardship or loss not once during this pandemic, and that�*s why he has

apologised. and in relation to all the details, questions and claims rise, i think its right that sue gray is given time to conduct that investigation, there will a full accounting, the prime minister will come back to his house of commons, that�*s the right way to handle this. in what other line of employment which would be invited to bring your own trying out to work meeting? your make all sorts — own trying out to work meeting? your make all sorts of _ own trying out to work meeting? gm:- make all sorts of assumptions... that�*s in the e—mail. make all sorts of assumptions... that's in the e-mail._ make all sorts of assumptions... that's in the e-mail. that white sue gra has that's in the e-mail. that white sue gray has been _ that's in the e-mail. that white sue gray has been tasked _ that's in the e-mail. that white sue gray has been tasked to _ that's in the e-mail. that white sue gray has been tasked to conduct - that's in the e-mail. that white sue gray has been tasked to conduct an| gray has been tasked to conduct an investigation to make sure all those questions can be answered in it is clear, transparent. the questions can be answered in it is clear, transparent.— clear, transparent. the prime minister is — clear, transparent. the prime minister is he _ clear, transparent. the prime minister is he assumed - clear, transparent. the prime minister is he assumed it - clear, transparent. the prime minister is he assumed it was clear, transparent. the prime i minister is he assumed it was a clear, transparent. the prime - minister is he assumed it was a work meeting, there was alcohol, there was picnic food, it was up to 6pm, it was in the garden, how does he think that expiration is a credible? he gave a full account of the house of commons about this, but given the fact that the garden is extension to the working space at number 10, and

they were working all hours given they were working all hours given the pandemic, but if there are issues raised about this, that is precisely why sue gray are there to conduct the investigation and make sure all the answers can be provided in a way which i think is sober, calm and full.— calm and full. ever was a work meeting. _ calm and full. ever was a work meeting, while _ calm and full. ever was a work meeting, while the _ calm and full. ever was a work meeting, while the prime - calm and full. ever was a work - meeting, while the prime minister's meeting, while the prime minister�*s there? meeting, while the prime minister's there? ., meeting, while the prime minister's there? :, ., meeting, while the prime minister's there? ., ., , , ., , there? you asking these questions which is precisely _ there? you asking these questions which is precisely why _ there? you asking these questions which is precisely why sue - there? you asking these questions which is precisely why sue gray - there? you asking these questions| which is precisely why sue gray has been tasked to conduct this investigation to provide answers to all these different aspects. number 10 is a place of work but also home to the prime minister and his family. to the prime minister and his famil . ~ , family. the prime minister said he did not receive _ family. the prime minister said he did not receive this _ family. the prime minister said he did not receive this e-mail - family. the prime minister said he did not receive this e-mail about i did not receive this e—mail about the gathering, how did you know about it? the the gathering, how did you know about it? ~ , about it? the prime minister full account of— about it? the prime minister full account of his _ about it? the prime minister full account of his actions _ about it? the prime minister full account of his actions on - about it? the prime minister full account of his actions on that - about it? the prime minister full| account of his actions on that day to day to day in the house of commons. is there any further questions, i think it is only right that sue gray is given the time to conduct an urgent investigation, i am sure that will be done without fear or favour and there will be full transparency to the outcome.

you can�*t elaborate on the prime minister�*s explanation because it�*s not credible, isn�*t it? tn minister's explanation because it's not credible, isn't it?— not credible, isn't it? i'm not auoin not credible, isn't it? i'm not going to _ not credible, isn't it? i'm not going to elaborate _ not credible, isn't it? i'm not going to elaborate because i not credible, isn't it? i'm notj going to elaborate because it not credible, isn't it? i'm not. going to elaborate because it is not credible, isn't it? i'm not- going to elaborate because it is not my place. if it is of significance as you are suggesting, i think the best thing to do is to allow sue gray to conduct this investigation and allow her the space to come back and allow her the space to come back and answer all of the questions. ithule and answer all of the questions. we run again for the later conservative party if there is a vacancy, which may well be? t party if there is a vacancy, which may well be?— party if there is a vacancy, which may well be? i think it's frankly a daft question. — may well be? i think it's frankly a daft question, i'm _ may well be? i think it's frankly a daft question, i'm fully _ may well be? i think it's frankly a | daft question, i'm fully supportive daft question, i�*m fully supportive of this prime minister and i am sure he will continue for many years to come. . ~' he will continue for many years to come. ., ~ i. at the prime minister will be hoping that his apology has been enough and we will await the results of that inquiry is conducted into the various parties held here. he will

also be waiting a little nervously perhaps to see, as we have been hearing, how is fellow tory mps react to his performance today in the commons and his apology and he�*ll be wondering how many of them think that maybe, just maybe, there could be better off with another litre and another prime minister. more from me a little later, now back to the studio. two cute stories dominating the bbc today, prince andrew will face a civil trial in the us over accusations of sexual assault. ijudge rejected an attempt by the duke of york to have the case thrown out. of the prince has consistently denied the claims by virginia giuffre. mark stevens is a lawyer with expertise in this area and we asked him if he had seen this coming. and we asked him if he had seen this cominr. , :, , and we asked him if he had seen this cominr. , .,, , and we asked him if he had seen this comin-. , .,, , ., and we asked him if he had seen this cominu. , , ., . coming. this has been a case which was limited — coming. this has been a case which was limited in _ coming. this has been a case which was limited in the _ coming. this has been a case which was limited in the past _ coming. this has been a case which was limited in the past two - coming. this has been a case which was limited in the past two prince i was limited in the past two prince andrew but as we think we understand

now, prince andrew�*s options are being increasingly limited. he can appeal, you can settle or he can go on with the case or allow the case to go on. and those are three pretty bad options for him. his appeal has got merit but nobody is putting the chances that over a0%, i think. the point they would take is thatjudge lewis kaplan has failed to interpret the settlement contract properly. but even while that appeal would be going on, judge kaplan set this aggressive timetable for this matter to be heard later this year. my expectation is that he will list the case to be heard in late november or early december. this with a view to allowing prince andrew about the time to prepare for the trial but also to conduct his appeal. but we

are, really, with prince andrew, in the last chance allusion with the towel over the taps. the only thing that makes this worse is that prince andrew has to start giving evidence in this case, whether that�*s about his sweating or his trip to pizza express or, worse still, what he has to deal with the allegations of what he�*s supposed to have done with a i7—year—old woman. then, in those circumstances, i think that creates the constitutional problems for the wider royal family because i think he has to settle, and that�*s a big issue here. he doesn�*t really have many options and, of course, that gives virginia giuffre many of the cards in this case, because of course, if she knows he�*s desperate to settle, effectively has to settle at all costs, then the price goes up. at all costs, then the price goes u n . :, at all costs, then the price goes u -. ., , at all costs, then the price goes u . _ :, , ., at all costs, then the price goes

u. :, , , :, , at all costs, then the price goes up. you set a couple of times that there is an — up. you set a couple of times that there is an impending _ up. you set a couple of times that i there is an impending constitutional crisis. it is that we leave it case? prince andrew has retired from public life, he is effectively at the margins of the royal family, the potential embarrassment to the royal family would undoubtedly be there but a constitutional crisis? t use but a constitutional crisis? i use the word constitutional- but a constitutional crisis? i use the word constitutional crisis . the word constitutional crisis lightly but i don�*t shy away from it in this sense, that up until now, this virginia giuffre case, the allegation she has made, have been limited to prince andrew. but what we�*ve seen since the court case a couple of weeks ago has been essentially calls for him to front up essentially calls for him to front up and actually deal with the merits of the case, for him to be stripped of the case, for him to be stripped of his titles and there have been allegations about the queen paying his legal costs and also providing

some measure of protection. this is the first time that prince andrew�*s problems have reached into and are beginning to touch the wider royal family. there will be crisis meetings taking place, downing street will be being consulted. of the privy councillors will be called in and, of course, the most central advisers to the key members of the royal family will be coming in to deal with this crisis looks at a crisis they have never seen before but they know that this case has got to be settled, it�*s got to be dealt with now, it can�*t be allowed to linger because the only thing that is worse than having prince andrew send out your that he is in already, is to actually have him to start to deal with the allegations in public, whether that�*s on a video, on depositions, which is the process of america, orwhether depositions, which is the process of america, or whether it lives in court. eitherway,

america, or whether it lives in court. either way, the detail of this case is going to be excruciatingly gory, appalling and, i think of course, prince andrew has nowhere to go. he�*s effectively a dead man walking as far as the royal family is concerned. but do one thing he can do is to accept the responsibility, accept the blame, accept that he has to pull on his sword for the sake of the wider royal family. we spoke to the managing director of the long crime network, he is based in york and has been following the case closely. in york and has been following the case closely-— in york and has been following the case closel . ., ., case closely. having sat through the oral arguments _ case closely. having sat through the oral arguments of _ case closely. having sat through the oral arguments of the _ case closely. having sat through the oral arguments of the case, - case closely. having sat through the oral arguments of the case, it - case closely. having sat through the oral arguments of the case, it was i oral arguments of the case, it was very clear that thejudge oral arguments of the case, it was very clear that the judge was sharply questioning the prince�*s lawyers. i think i have a number of other reporters remembered the headlinejudge other reporters remembered the headline judge sceptical of prince�*s much into this mess, and that is what we found hundreds of. rejected

all the arguments to dismiss virginia giuffre�*s lawsuit at this stage of litigation and what we had perceived during that hearing, that the judge was very sceptical of the prince�*s arguments, in fact came to pass. he rejected them entirely, at least at this stage. 50. pass. he rejected them entirely, at least at this stage.— least at this stage. so, what the 'ud . e was least at this stage. so, what the judge was being _ least at this stage. so, what the judge was being asked - least at this stage. so, what the judge was being asked to - least at this stage. so, what the i judge was being asked to consider was whether a previous settlement agreement between virginia giuffre and jeffrey epstein meant that prince andrew could not be liable in court, that he would not have to face any allegations made by virginia giuffre. thejudge has thrown that out. should this come to trial in the autumn, and we don�*t know if it well, should this come to trial, whether it be tested again? maybe. reading from the ruling, he makes a point over and over again to

say that at this stage of the proceedings, thejudge�*s role is to decide whether the allegations were well played and assume the allegations should be true for the purposes of this motion, he also had to determine whether there were two reasonable interpretations of this 2009 agreement. so, he did not determine as a matter of law that the prince has no defence when it comes to disagreements. the prince may argue before a trier of fact, if this goes to trial, to a jury or to a judge, that this 2009 agreement to protect but at this stage of the litigation, was not enoughjust protect but at this stage of the litigation, was not enough just a point of this agreement and say that he should not face this lawsuit. this lawsuit is in fact going to move ahead, it�*s going to go to the discovery process. the discovery process is never caused but the charge has already set a deadline

for the end of discovery at around july iii. for the end of discovery at around jul 14. ~ ., for the end of discovery at around jul 14. �* :, .,, :, :, �* july 14. and for those who don't know, july 14. and for those who don't know. x-wing _ july 14. and for those who don't know, x-wing to _ july 14. and for those who don't know, x-wing to us _ july 14. and for those who don't know, x-wing to us exactly - july 14. and for those who don't| know, x-wing to us exactly what july 14. and for those who don't - know, x-wing to us exactly what the know, x—wing to us exactly what the discovery process is? tt is discovery process is? it is essentially _ discovery process is? it is essentially the _ discovery process is? it is essentially the fact - discovery process is? tt 3 essentially the fact gathering process. as an example, the famous interview on newsnight, prince andrew made the assertion that he did not sweat, but he was medically incapable of sweating at the time, that ms giuffre allege that he did. miss giuffre�*s counsellor specifically asked for evidence of that claim, the time period, the discovery phase is where the parties get to seek evidence testing the other party�*s assertions. might be through documentary evidence, it might be through depositions but thatis might be through depositions but that is what this place is all about. : :, that is what this place is all about. : ., ., , ~ ., about. and what of the duke of york's legal— about. and what of the duke of york's legal options _ about. and what of the duke of york's legal options now - about. and what of the duke of york's legal options now we've | about. and what of the duke of - york's legal options now we've had york�*s legal options now we�*ve had this decision from the judge. his

this decision from the 'udge. his la ers this decision from the judge. ti 3 lawyers are going to see how they react and see what you have an option to appeal the ruling. so, they have not yet announced their intention so far as that goes. hand intention so far as that goes. and as for what _ intention so far as that goes. and as for what they _ intention so far as that goes. and as for what they were doing the discovery process, we knew it previously they wanted to depose ms giuffre to previously they wanted to depose ms giuffre :, : :, previously they wanted to depose ms giuffre ., . ., ,, , ,, giuffre to challenge issues like jurisdiction _ giuffre to challenge issues like jurisdiction as _ giuffre to challenge issues like jurisdiction as to _ giuffre to challenge issues like jurisdiction as to whether - giuffre to challenge issues like jurisdiction as to whether this. jurisdiction as to whether this belongs in a us federal court, and the believe that mr giuffre was residing in australia, so that it is not yet been adjudicated, they may take any number of adjudication options as this case progresses. that interview conducted a little earlier. i want to know now at windsor, where we�*ve seen many comings and goings, windsor where the queen spends much of her time.

buckingham palace has been tight—lipped about the us court ruling but one can imagine the consternation that is going on behind the scenes. you�*re watching bbc news. lets a at the weather. good evening. it's lets a at the weather. good evening. it�*s been a fine day across much of the country, particularly england and wales, a cold start with mist and wales, a cold start with mist and fog around but plenty of sunshine too. further north across scotland and northern ireland, more cloud. that is how it will stay the next few days, settled next to high—pressure but increasing problems with the dense fog across england and wales, that could cause issues for travel. default will return across parts of england and wales tonight, more extensive than the last few nights and could be very dense in places. a further

north, we hold on to the breeze across scotland, so here a little mild with temperatures around 7 degrees but a widespread frost for england and wales where we have that fog. high—pressure dominates and keeps the weather fronts at bay, i suppose across scotland, saw a breezy one here. the clouds they can offer spots of rain across the northwest. further south, a frosty start, most fog should lift but there will be patches that will be stubborn to clear and hang around all day, so that means it could be quite cold and grey where it hangs around. light winds not shifting that fog. further north, bruiser conditions, those are gusting. temperatures into double figures for the north and west of scotland, generally further south, single digits, but around freezing weather that fog lingers. it we keep the very cold air at bay, temperatures around the seasonal average, the area of high pressure continues to

dominate. this air may bring a few more showers for the end of week to the far north of scotland, so the odd spot of rain for the northwest of the highlands, a bit more cloud and variable priest too. elsewhere, the cold starts with dense fog patches which could linger all day and there will be some sunshine around as well. temperatures around 9 degrees, double figure values across the northwest of scotland. fog could be an issue through thursday and friday, certainly, keep your chin to your bbc local radio or the weather forecast, there are likely to be some issues with travel because it be could be quite dense in places. we cannot too bad, why try and settle, just the chance of a front pushing into northern parts of the uk bringing a patchy rain at times but had time staying dry.

this is bbc news. the headlines... the duke of york will face a civil trial over allegations he sexually did you lie about the parties, prime minister? pressure grows on the prime minister after he apologises for attending a party in the downing street garden, but claims at the time, he thought it was a work event. i certainly wish that things had happened differently— on the evening of may the 20th, mr speaker, and i apologise - for all the misjudgments that have been made, i for which i take i full responsibility. when the whole country was locked down, he was hosting boozy parties in downing street. is he now going to do the decent thing and resign? there also calls for him to resign

within his own party.