lawyers and give his account giuffre lawyers and give his account of events. it's always a critical moment in a civil case like this because once that account is down, under oath it can be used in trial. lots of lawyers have been following this have been saying over the course of the last six months or so is that, that was going to be the crystal moment where presenter would have to decide whether or not he really wanted this to go to trial. once you've given your evidence under oath, that can be used against you in court. and lo and behold with this extraordinary turn of events here where as many people have been predicting from day one the duke of york and virginia giuffre settled this case before it got to the doors of the court. i think it's really interesting when you look, if you bear with me i'll look at it on my screen to my left ear. a couple of things here, the first thing i think is really important is to take into account about what prince andrew said about virginia giuffre's character. let's put the catch to

i's eye for the moment. in a statement today he says that he has never intended, prince andrew has never intended, prince andrew has never intended, prince andrew has never intended to malign ms. giuffre character. both as in established victim of abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks. i think it's really interesting about that, bear with me, something said earlier in this case, "during the early parts of the case when he, his lawyers are trying to get the case thrown out prince andrews lawyers filed the following words. these were words were basically fought within his commission. "it's unfortunate and in deniable the sensation of innuendo that prevailed over the truth, giuffre has initiated this baseless lawsuit against prince andrew to achieve another pay date at his expense. that accusation could be clearerfrom prince expense. that accusation could be clearer from prince andrew in through his lawyers in court yet

today in a settlement he is saying that her character cannot be maligned, she is an established victim of abuse. he stopped short of admitting any wrongdoing on his part but in essence by saying that the character cannot be maligned, she is an established victim of the views he is accepting in essence that what she has been saying comes from some truth even though he maintains or has maintained so far that he is not guilty of any wrongdoing. i think this is a really interesting turn of events they are. a lot of people have been speculating about whether or not ms. giuffre would settle without kind of wording which would acknowledge things about her character and what she stood for evenif character and what she stood for even if the settlement or an outcome would not necessarily, basically land prince andrew of the accusation of abuse. that hasn't happened in

the settlement. there is no admission of liability in the settlement but virginia giuffre will walk away feeling that her character here has been restored. i think that's really, really interesting in this. �* , that's really, really interesting in this. 3 ., that's really, really interesting in this. �*, ., ., ., that's really, really interesting in this. ., ., . , this. there's a lot of technicality in the documents _ this. there's a lot of technicality in the documents which - this. there's a lot of technicality in the documents which i - this. there's a lot of technicality in the documents which i think. this. there's a lot of technicality i in the documents which i think we can see some of the mall. these are been issued on a website. the way the us courts work is they don't give any warning when the stuff is coming, it appears once they are ready to put it out there. in terms of what you are talking about there, how large a kind of collapse of the princes position does this represent, do you think? when you are talkin: represent, do you think? when you are talking about _ represent, do you think? when you are talking about a _ represent, do you think? when you are talking about a damages - represent, do you think? when you are talking about a damages case, | are talking about a damages case, there are various things in play can you afford to go to trial? one assumes the prints ninth a line or whatever he is aligned to the throne has resources behind him or access to resources if he believes that's

the right way forward. many people don't file a civil damages case and advise them not to fight it out because it's damaging both in time, money and also character. the second issue with this is you've got to calculate the potential harm and damage to your own character. perhaps by settling early and quickly, even if that's a settlement without an admission of liability, whether or not that is the best course of action. going back to an earlier stage in this case, we had a situation where prince andrews lawyers tried everything to get this case thrown out on a series of technicalities. they said that virginia giuffre couldn't sue him because of a proceeding settlement in relation tojeffrey epstein in florida. that was comprehensively thrown out by the manhattan judge back last month. we had another series of technical challenges to

this case such as whether he actually breached his constitutional right as a defendant in the manner of which is been put together. all thrown out. in fact it was left with very, very few options. those options were basically to not take part in the case, if that had happened there would've been a summaryjudgment against them, summary judgment against them, automatically summaryjudgment against them, automatically of lost the summary judgment against them, automatically of lost the case summaryjudgment against them, automatically of lost the case and the courts would have found him effectively that he did commit abuse against virginia giuffre. he could go to trial and put his trust in a jury go to trial and put his trust in a jury and the facts would come up there. risky because virginia giuffre only has to win on the balance of probability. 51% i think in those terms. the third is to settle and that's why lawyers very often advise their clients, settle the case, by some form of warden that's a complaint and live with that's a complaint and live with that shoots their ends. and if money needs to change hands as well, do the money thing as well so you can get this behind you and get on with the rest of your life otherwise it gonna be hanging over you like an

open wound books will potentially never be healed in your life. that was our home — never be healed in your life. that was our home affairs _ never be healed in your life. that was our home affairs correspondent. a very good afternoon. you are watching bbc news. the time six minutes past five. i'm jane watching bbc news. the time six minutes past five. i'mjane hill and we are staying with the story that is broken within the last hour. if you are just is broken within the last hour. if you arejustjoining us here on bbc news, in the last hour it has emerged that prince andrew and virginia giuffre have reached an out—of—court settlement. this is in relation to the civil case that virginia giuffre roberts, now had planned to bring. always discussion that she wanted her day in court to use a phrase but it appears that they have now reached an out—of—court settlement. and this is emerged as a court documents that have been filed in the united states

for exact sums of money, we do not know yet. but we have been told that prince andrew intends to make what's described as a substantial donation to virginia giuffre's charity in support of victims rights. some of the comments coming out of the court, part of the settlement, i should say, is that prince andrew has never intended to maligned mr frey�*s character and he accepts that she has suffered both as an established victim of abuse and as a result of on their public attacks. and the wording released by the court says it's known thatjeffrey epstein trafficked countless young girls over many years and prince andrew regrets his association with epstein. so news in the last hour that an out—of—court settlement has been reached. we will continue to get reaction to that news throughout the afternoon and evening here on

bbc news. let'sjust the afternoon and evening here on bbc news. let's just hear a little bit more first from ms. osborne currently she is a legaljournalist thatis currently she is a legaljournalist that is been covering this case throughout. she told my colleague shawn lay that this settlement has come as a surprise.— come as a surprise. virginia 9900 friday and _ come as a surprise. virginia 9900 friday and her— come as a surprise. virginia 9900 friday and her lawyers _ come as a surprise. virginia 9900 friday and her lawyers said - come as a surprise. virginia ggoo| friday and her lawyers said before that they —— giuffre. they want accepting a settlement so this is a surprise to me. but there are lots of different reasons epics could happen. because you said, after he failed to get this case dismissed prince andrew, and i'm sure everyone behind the scenes would've been doing absolutely whatever they could to try and settle this case, they would have been pulling out all of the stops because theyjust wanted to avoid these allegations being aired publicly. so i think wentz that ruling came down, when he was denied his motion to dismiss the case things would have changed from prince andrews perspective and he

would have changed what he is able to offer virginia giuffre. that might be why were in this position out. as we've just been hearing there is some interesting wording in this element. there is some interesting wording in this element-— this element. what particularly lea -s out this element. what particularly leaps out for — this element. what particularly leaps out for you? _ this element. what particularly leaps out for you? what's - this element. what particularly leaps out for you? what's the i this element. what particularly - leaps out for you? what's the thing that strikes you most as you look at the phrases they've managed to doubtless hours and days and maybe weeks of negotiation to come to? i'll tell you, i cannot even imagine the negotiations that went into this kind of one long paragraph. it is surprising to me because out—of—court settlements as we know are most often used to try and keep things private, try to avoid any admissions of guilt. this is not an admissions of guilt. this is not an admission of guilt but it is something. he has given her something. he has given her something in this wording. he said that he acknowledges that virginia giuffre is a an established victim

of abuse. and it also says we know thatjeffrey epstein trafficked countless girls. so this is a couple things, is saying this happened, i accept that this happened, jeffrey epstein did this and i was associated with him. it then goes on to say prince andrew regrets his association with jeffrey to say prince andrew regrets his association withjeffrey epstein. it is not an admission of guilt but it is not an admission of guilt but it is not an admission of guilt but it is not something i would expect to see in an out—of—court is not something i would expect to see this. out—of—court is not something i would expect to see this. it it—of—court is not something i would expect to see this. it is of—court is not something i would expect to see this. it is somewhere in like this. it is somewhere in between, i think. and in some ways you can see that that wording, because virginia giuffre had always said it's about accountability for her. there is some degree of account of nullity and the settlement. terms of reputation, it's fair to say that terms of reputation, it's fair to say tha1 giuffre's reputation terms of reputation, it's fair to say tha1 giuffre's reputa says terms of reputation, it's fair to say thai giuffre's reput annette? absolutely. it says that she is in abuse _

annette? absolutely. it says that she is been use "eta; :,%t,,, annette? absolutely. it says that she is been a ;e "stir; :,%t,,, annette? absolutely. it says that she is been a victim g :,%t,,, annette? absolutely. it says that she is been a victim of :,%t,,, annette? absolutely. it says that she is been a victim ofi prince attacks and it says that prince andrew commands that prince coming forward. and that prince andrew certainly survivors coming forward. certainly this is him survivors coming forward. certainly this i this] survivors coming forward. certainly this i this happened to you and i survivors coming forward. certainly this i this happened tc is )u and i survivors coming forward. certainly this i this happened tc is well, i i survivors coming forward. certainly this i this happened tc is well, not her bravery. that part is well, not something you'd expect to her bravery. that part is well, not something like d expect to her bravery. that part is well, not something like this. sect to her bravery. that part is well, not something like this. i ct to her bravery. that part is well, not something like this. i think that her bravery. that part is well, not something like this important at her. would've been very important to her. because we know that didn't because we know that she didn't want to settle this case i think because we know that she didn't want to settli to |is case i think because we know that she didn't want to settli to me ase i think because we know that she didn't want to settli to me that think because we know that she didn't want to settli to me that these words are obvious to me that these words are what we should be focusing on in terms of what may be tipped the scales and in terms of what convinced her to accept a settlement. because she was always clear that she wasn't interested in the financial settlement. i think these words are what make it not just a financial settlement. that was ms. osborne _

just a financial settlement. that was ms. osborne crowley talking to us in the last half hour or so. she's a legaljournalist who has been following that story. she was talking bear as that news broke. let's talk you through the specifics of the documents that have actually emerged from the us in the last hour or so. these are documents that have been presented to the court, this is a civil case, of course. they reveal just a few more details of the settlement. we will take a look at a couple of extracts, some of the important extracts included this... well the documents go on to say...

he pledges to demonstrate his regret for his association with epstein by supporting the fight against the evils of six trafficking and by supporting its victims. in terms of some of the details around that, specifically about his relationship with the convicted paedophile jeffrey epstein, this document acknowledges, it is clear, it says it is known now thatjeffrey epstein trafficked doubtless young girls over many years was up and prince andrew regrets his association with epstein. that will put you in mind i'm sure of the lengthy that prince andrew ge dude newsnight a couple of years ago where he was questioned extensively about his friendship with jeffrey epstein,

extensively about his friendship withjeffrey epstein, to what extent he regretted it. in that interview you'll remember that he denied any association with virginia giuffre. so the two have now reached an out—of—court settlement. this was a civil case it now does not go into open court with all the inevitable scrutiny and disclosures that would have been inevitable. even today you might have seen articles in the press about this forthcoming civil case, talk about that photo. this is the photo, of course. it's all a famous photo. this is a cropped version and you will know over virginia giuffre's shoulder is ghislaine maxwell who has of course very recently stood trial in the us herself at a lot of debate about prince andrews legal team wanting

the original of this particular image and lots of in newspapers today that the original copy had apparently been lost. this is a photograph showing them at ghislaine maxwell's home. an agreement has been reached, an out—of—court settlement the news that's emerged in the last hour or so. let's discuss that with the author of prince andrew, epstein, maxwelland the palace. hejoins me now. erica afternoon to you. your thoughts, first of all, did you expect this case to end this way? i’m first of all, did you expect this case to end this way? i'm surprised that it's so — case to end this way? i'm surprised that it's so promptly. _ case to end this way? i'm surprised that it's so promptly. as _ case to end this way? i'm surprised that it's so promptly. as we - case to end this way? i'm surprised that it's so promptly. as we know l that it's so promptly. as we know really all civil cases in the united states to an out—of—court settlement, we don't have much detail yet about how much money is involved. of course, who's gonna pay

for? ~ , , ., ., . ., for? well, yes. you touched on several points _ for? well, yes. you touched on several points already. - for? well, yes. you touched on several points already. no, - for? well, yes. you touched on several points already. no, we| for? well, yes. you touched on - several points already. no, we don't know the psalm involved, that hasn't been revealed. we know that prince andrew will make what is described as a substantial donation to virginia giuffre's charity which is in supports of victims right. your thoughts on that specific point. that's a good way to settle this matter, certainly. however, he is not a particularly wealthy man. where is this money coming from? i'm sure all taxpayers in would like to know that. will we ever find out, do you think? - would like to know that. will we i ever find out, do you think? again, it can be a — ever find out, do you think? again, it can be a private _ ever find out, do you think? again, it can be a private matter. - ever find out, do you think? again, it can be a private matter. the - it can be a private matter. the court papers can be sailed on that. they will always be the question hanging in the air about that. so both the total sum and where that money is coming from could be

secret? yes, indeed. all sorts of estimates already of how much he's had to spend on lawyers. his lead lawyer in the us is reported to be charging $2000 an hour. he's already racked up a considerable bill. in the earlier days of this, virginia giuffre is reported as saying she didn't want the money, per se, she wanted to use a british phrase, have her day in court. from her and her teams perspective, why do you think it's reach this point?— it's reach this point? well, we don't know — it's reach this point? well, we don't know what's _ it's reach this point? well, we don't know what's going - it's reach this point? well, we don't know what's going on i it's reach this point? well, we - don't know what's going on behind closed doors. yes, she did assert that she wanted some sort of formal apology and wanted vindication in the face of the world. whether there

is some private settlement about that. ~ , .,, is some private settlement about that. ~ , i. is some private settlement about that. ~ , ., that. we “ust lost you at the end. i'llt that. we just lost you at the end. i'll try one _ that. we just lost you at the end. i'll try one of— that. we just lost you at the end. i'll try one of the _ that. we just lost you at the end. i'll try one of the question - that. we just lost you at the end. i'll try one of the question if - i'll try one of the question if i can in the hope that we will hear you. i'm interested in your thoughts about this first statement that has emerged from the states put up prince andrew regrets his association with epstein. has it taken a long time to reach that point, do you think? it certainly has. point, do you think? it certainly has- he's _ point, do you think? it certainly has. he's made _ point, do you think? it certainly has. he's made some _ point, do you think? it certainly has. he's made some sort - point, do you think? it certainly has. he's made some sort of. point, do you think? it certainly - has. he's made some sort of remarks about that. he said it was a matter of misjudgment. he doesn't say it was a mistake to have a long association with ghislaine maxwell which apparently do now.- association with ghislaine maxwell which apparently do now. would you exect which apparently do now. would you exoect such — which apparently do now. would you exoect such a _ which apparently do now. would you expect such a comment _ which apparently do now. would you expect such a comment as _ which apparently do now. would you expect such a comment as well? - expect such a comment as well? obviously, this is a damage limitation exercise here. we've only had this very short statement and

that's probably all we are going to get. that's probably all we are going to net. . ~ that's probably all we are going to set, ., ~' y., ., ., that's probably all we are going to net. . ~' ,, ., ., , that's probably all we are going to net. . ~ ., ., , ., get. thank you for now elements of dro out get. thank you for now elements of dropout on — get. thank you for now elements of dropout on that _ get. thank you for now elements of dropout on that line. _ get. thank you for now elements of dropout on that line. we _ get. thank you for now elements of dropout on that line. we will - dropout on that line. we will leave that they are. thank you very much for your thoughts. that they are. thank you very much foryourthoughts. let's that they are. thank you very much for your thoughts. let's talk to adam, a journalist for the courthouse news, a courthouse news service primarily focusing on civil case, this was a civil case was a welcome to bbc news. joining us from new york. what are you hearing in new york. what are you hearing in new york. what are you hearing in new york about this? this news has emerged in only the last hour, what more can you tell us? in a emerged in only the last hour, what more can you tell us?— more can you tell us? in a page filinu. more can you tell us? in a page filing- just _ more can you tell us? in a page filing- just a — more can you tell us? in a page filing. just a quick— more can you tell us? in a page filing. just a quick thing, - more can you tell us? in a page filing. just a quick thing, i'm i more can you tell us? in a page filing. just a quick thing, i'm a l filing. just a quick thing, i'm a managing editorfor law filing. just a quick thing, i'm a managing editor for law and filing. just a quick thing, i'm a managing editorfor law and crime in new york. the first page basically an ounce of the parties have reached an ounce of the parties have reached a settlement in principle and the second page of it, and exhibit two

it describes, one paragraph, pretty extraordinary statement just announcing that virginia giuffre and prince andrew have reached the outboard settlement, that they plan to stimulate through dismissal once ms. giuffre receives the settlement and prince andrew plans to make a substantial donation to ms. giuffre's charity and victims rights. it goes on, it says a little bit later in the statement crafted by both the attorneys that he never attempted to malign miss back to i's character. we know that if this case went to trial his attorney, the princes attorneys signal that he would essentially try to paint her as someone who had recruited victims forjeffrey epstein. this statement renounces allegations like that and says that he accepts that she had suffered as an established victim of abuse and as a result of unfair

public attacks. and as your progress said, he regretted his association with epstein it doesn't go into great detail about the particular allegations of ms. giuffre's complaint. she said from the beginning and her attorneys have been very vocal in the interviews saying that they weren't looking simply for a dollarfigure, they simply for a dollar figure, they were simply for a dollarfigure, they were looking for a statement. and what we had is a pretty meaty one pay two paragraph statement. this two page filing and that statement on the second page. usith two page filing and that statement on the second page.— on the second page. with your exoerience _ on the second page. with your experience in _ on the second page. with your experience in these _ on the second page. with your experience in these sort - on the second page. with your experience in these sort of- on the second page. with your. experience in these sort of cases and civil litigation and following the usjudicial system, would your experience tell you that we will at any point get more details, would it ever be revealed publicly the sum of money involved, what can you speak to around that? iunion

money involved, what can you speak to around that?— to around that? won thing in coverin: to around that? won thing in covering this _ to around that? won thing in covering this particular - to around that? won thing in covering this particular case | to around that? won thing in i covering this particular case for very long time is that one can never be assured that information that starts out to be confidential is always going to remain that way. remember, in this litigation we talked a lot about ms. giuffre settlement with epstein which came disclosed over the course of litigation. a lot of reporters will be looking at charity filings, for example about clues of what would be going on. i think there may be more tension over the years as this entire saga unfolds. but right now we have this kind of tantalising view in this announcement of a settlement in where we are getting the broad strokes of it and we are getting this extraordinary statement.— getting this extraordinary statement. , , , ., statement. yes. i suppose we should clari , statement. yes. i suppose we should clarify. this — statement. yes. i suppose we should clarify, this absolutely _ statement. yes. i suppose we should clarify, this absolutely is _ statement. yes. i suppose we should clarify, this absolutely is the - statement. yes. i suppose we should clarify, this absolutely is the end - clarify, this absolutely is the end of the matter, isn't it? is this the way in the legal system that this is

the end, there can be no change of mind, no more cases brought? the first -ae~ mind, no more cases brought? the first page of _ mind, no more cases brought? tia: first page of it says mind, no more cases brought? ti2 first page of it says that it's a settlement in principle. so it suggests that there... generally speaking when two parties and high—stakes litigation such as this to make such an extraordinary announcement, it suggests that they want to resolve it with finality. and it's up to those parties to reach whatever terms that they have reached that on. artery reach whatever terms that they have reached that on.— reached that on. very interesting. thank ou reached that on. very interesting. thank you very — reached that on. very interesting. thank you very much _ reached that on. very interesting. thank you very much adam. - reached that on. very interesting. | thank you very much adam. thank reached that on. very interesting. - thank you very much adam. thank you for your time and joining us on bbc news. airfare and we will stay with this perspective, i'm joined by a legal correspondent for the insider

website. jacob, thank you for your time. your thoughts first of all on this, did you expect this outcome? i will say i did expect a settlement, i do think the next step here were depositions from virginia, prince andrew. i think for prince andrew to take a deposition it could be disastrous, opens up all the avenues for more problems, the transcripts would be potentially filed to court. if it went to take trial and i think it would make sense for him to just shut this down out of settlement as soon as possible instead of dragging it out where they could be more damage and heart relations. right. is this absolutely _ damage and heart relations. right. is this absolutely the _ damage and heart relations. right. is this absolutely the end _ damage and heart relations. right. is this absolutely the end from - damage and heart relations. right. | is this absolutely the end from your knowledge of the sort of proceedings because that is the beginning of the end. ., ., because that is the beginning of the end. . . ., because that is the beginning of the end. . ., ., , , , because that is the beginning of the end. . ., ., , ,, ., end. there are a few more steps that have to be done. _ end. there are a few more steps that have to be done. as _ end. there are a few more steps that have to be done. as he _ end. there are a few more steps that have to be done. as he settled - end. there are a few more steps that have to be done. as he settled me i have to be done. as he settled me and says, prince andrew has to actually pay what he said he had pay for check appears then they formally

file a motion to dismiss this case with up thejudge file a motion to dismiss this case with up the judge has to approve the settlement terms. judges typically do you approve settlement terms of its very unusual for just do you approve settlement terms of its very unusual forjust a look at the settlement and say the settlements unfair. in this case they both have good lawyers. it is possible the judge can review the settlement terms, state law, justice isn't done and we have to figure out something else. so there are a few avenues for it to keep going but this is the beginning of the end, most likely. the this is the beginning of the end, most likely-— this is the beginning of the end, most likely. the beginning of the ad. 0k, most likely. the beginning of the ad- 0k. jacob. — most likely. the beginning of the ad. 0k, jacob, thank— most likely. the beginning of the ad. 0k, jacob, thank you - most likely. the beginning of the ad. 0k, jacob, thank you very . most likely. the beginning of the i ad. 0k, jacob, thank you very much ad. ok, jacob, thank you very much indeed for your insight. also in new york for us this afternoon on bbc news. if you are justjoining york for us this afternoon on bbc news. if you arejustjoining us, our guests in the us discussing that news that broke perhaps no more than an hour and a half ago that virginia giuffre m prince andrew pictured here in that photograph that we now all know so well have reached in

out—of—court settlement. prince andrew will be making a substantial donation to virginia giuffre's charity in support of victims right. we will have continuing coverage of this on bbc news. and let's stay with this for now. return to this country because i'm joined by mark stevens, a lawyer who specialises in media law with the firm howard kennedy. mark stevens, afternoon to you. i'm interested in whether you thought it would end this way. it was a racing certainty that it had to end this way. let's go back to the last year, if you will. of course at that hearing prince andrew in the immediate aftermath was essentially stripped of all his

titles, it was clear that he was reputation and a toasted that particular time. thejudge reputation and a toasted that particular time. the judge suggested that both parties it would be in their interest to settle this matter. i think that was very wise ofjudge lewis kaplan. essentially, the settlement has now avoided virginia giuffre having to go into court and relive her experience and also be subjected to very hostile cross—examination. on the other hand, prince andrew has avoided being able to have to give evidence on oath about what he did, the detail, the gory detail about which he would be cross examined. of course also that last hearing, the reason he was stripped was that the public started to question the role of the wider royal family, whether the queen was paying his legal fees, which of course she wasn't. and why she had stripped him of his various

titles epic essentially, prince andrew has taken one for the team. he's prevented any further damage to the wider royal family. this clears the way for us to appreciate the queen as our sovereign whose public service of the last 70 years, we can celebrate that untroubled by the possibility of stories emerging about prince andrew and virginia giuffre in the detail of what the allegations were in the american courtroom. allegations were in the american courtroom-— allegations were in the american courtroom. ., ., ~ ., courtroom. you make the point about what a difficult _ courtroom. you make the point about what a difficult process _ courtroom. you make the point about what a difficult process that _ courtroom. you make the point about what a difficult process that can - courtroom. you make the point about what a difficult process that can be i what a difficult process that can be and can be a very hostile and unpleasant process without it it's not that long ago that virginia giuffre's team was telling the world that she didn't want a sum of money, she wanted her day in court, she wanted to lay out all her allegations in court. what sort of conversations will help gone on, what would have changed her mind, given your experience of the legal

world? i given your experience of the legal world? ~ , , world? i think there is settlement, it effectively _ world? i think there is settlement, it effectively gives _ world? i think there is settlement, it effectively gives both _ world? i think there is settlement, it effectively gives both of - world? i think there is settlement, it effectively gives both of them i world? i think there is settlement, it effectively gives both of them in | it effectively gives both of them in an honourable way out. if that's an appropriate term in this case. for virginia giuffre, she's got the acknowledgement that she was a victim of abuse. she is going to get compensation, or lawyers will be paid in addition, she's tried to leverage the profile of prince andrew into helping charities for victims. essentially, the pot of money is divided up in three unequal ways, ones of the legal cause, once a compensation for virginia giuffre and one as a donation to a charity to do good works to help victims of sexual abuse going forward. from that point of view she's kind of got what she's wanted. and she's also avoided having to go to court put up on prince andrew said, he'll have to

pay handsomely. my current estimate is he's probably paid about 10 million in total to get this settlement. but he's got a nondisclosure agreement, he's doing that neither party is going to make any further comments on this, i don't think that's means he's rehabilitated but he certainly starch the problem for the wider royalfamily which is starch the problem for the wider royal family which is about all he could offer at this particular point in time. i think he's realise that this is prevented damage to his children, for example for the wider royal family. children, for example for the wider royalfamily. and while children, for example for the wider royal family. and while she'll never be rehabilitated in the minds of the general public, i think he's prevented wider problems for the you are estimating £10 million. who is going to pay that? {jut you are estimating £10 million. who is going to pay that?— is going to pay that? out, print standard's _ is going to pay that? out, print standard's network _ is going to pay that? out, print standard's network is _ is going to pay that? out, print standard's network is about i is going to pay that? out, print standard's network is about 10 | standard's network is about 10 million at the moment. he sold his ski chalet, with about 25 million in

a fire sale recently. he got 18 million. he cared about 10 million from that sale. that gave him essentially the cash to be able to settle this. i suspect he will not have kept much change out of that, if any. so that's why i think it was 10 million. he had to get this sold. i think that was one of the first indicators that we saw that he was prepared to sell at such and undervalue that he was desperate to raise funds. of course, the royal family will not bill him out of this. he's never going to go back into public life, and he will have to pay for this out of his own pocket. so those circumstances, think that's where the money has come from, you know, ithink think that's where the money has come from, you know, i think he goes into the life of a recluse and will never be seen a royal balcony again in recent memory.— never be seen a royal balcony again in recent memory. mark stevens, many thanks foryour— in recent memory. mark stevens, many thanks for your time. _ in recent memory. mark stevens, many thanks for your time. thank _ in recent memory. mark stevens, many thanks for your time. thank you, - thanks for your time. thank you, mark stevens who specialises in

media law, intellectual property rights and human rights with the firm howard kennedy, many of the points that mark stevens made there in his last dance i hope we will able to pick up on a little bit later in this hour in terms of the timing, reputational damage, as we enter, well, we are in a platinum jubilee. on the ten days or so since the queen became the longest reigning monarch in this country's history, and there are major celebrations planned in this country over a four day bank holiday weekend injune, so big celebrations for a fact, and of course, so many questions now about what role really, if any at all, prince andrew will play in the marking of a belly of the for the queen herself. so we may have more on that, i'm sure, over the course of the afternoon and evening here on bbc news. the time

right now is 5:32 p:m., we will talk for the next few minutes about the other story that has dominated here for some days and weeks now, and thatis for some days and weeks now, and that is of course the tension between russia and ukraine. there have been more talks and more diplomacy today. let's talk about that. russia's president has said he is prepared to continue dialogue about missiles and other security issues with the west after he held talks in moscow with germany's chancellor. tensions are still high in eastern europe. nato said earlier todayit in eastern europe. nato said earlier today it had seen no signs of de—escalation of the crisis, even though moscow at the start of the day announced that it was withdrawing some of its troops that were on ukraine's border. well, at a news conference a little earlier today, vladimir putin said moscow is proposing moves to alleviate the

crisis. the russian presidential journalists that russia does not want war in europe, but said russia's basic requirements haven't been met by nato and that it has an obligation not to strengthen its security at the expense of other countries. the latter claims that there are mass violations of human rights in ukraine. the there are mass violations of human rights in ukraine.— rights in ukraine. the three requirements _ rights in ukraine. the three requirements that - rights in ukraine. the three requirements that have i rights in ukraine. the three l requirements that have been rights in ukraine. the three i requirements that have been put forward have not been met by the response. from our nato partners and other parties. there are a few, there are a few ideas that need to be discussed. and we proposed a few ideas to our partners on the issue of european security and certain systems of weapons, medium range

rockets and so on. we are prepared to discuss these issues. we are also prepared we are prepared to discuss these issues and we are also prepared to conduct negotiations but all the issues, as we mentioned before, they need to be considered comprehensively. they should not be separated from other issues. of course, the topic of european security has been discussed in the context of the current situation, in the context of the situation with ukraine. as we know, ukrainian authorities refused to follow through on the minsk agreement and on the agreement which was reached later on. there are a few principal elements, judicial reform, —— through on the minsk agreement and on the agreement which was reached later on. there are a few principal elements, judicial reform, amnesty and special status for eastern ukraine. the former foreign minister

of germany proposed certain compromised measures but, unfortunately, they have not been achieved so far. that was part of vladimir putin's news conference earlier. earlier, nato secretary generaljens stoltenberg said he hasn't seen any signs of reducing russian military presence on the ukrainian borders. there are signs from moscow that diplomacy should continue. this gives grounds for cautious optimism. but so far, we have not seen any sign of de—escalation on the ground.

that was the secretary—general of nato. the prime minister chaired a cobra meeting on the crisis in ukraine this morning and after the meeting spoke to the media — let's take a listen. last night, going into today, clearly there are signs of a diplomatic opening and that has always been an opportunity, to talk. there are grounds for a conversation about ukraine, with ukraine, and that is good. we are seeing a russian openness to conversations, but on the other hand the intelligence we are seeing today is still not encouraging. we have got russian field hospitals being constructed near the border with ukraine, in belarus, which can only be construed as preparation for an invasion, and there are more battalion tactical groups

being brought closer to the border with ukraine, according to the intelligence that we are seeing. so, mixed signals at the moment and all the more reason for us to remain very tough and very united, especially on the economic sanctions. and what we're doing, the uk has been out in the lead for a while, what we're doing is targeting particular russian banks and russian companies, and making sure that we take steps, or take even more steps, to unpeel the facade of russian property holdings, whether in this city or elsewhere, in london or elsewhere, unpeel the facade of russian ownership of companies, and also take steps to stop russian companies from raising capital on london financial markets. it's a very tough

package of sanctions. it's ready to go if there is, if russia is so reckless as to invade ukraine. the prime minister speaking after that emergency cobra meeting a little earlier today. let's discuss the situation tonight. let's talk to doctor alina who is president and ceo of the centre for european policy analysis. very good afternoon. it depends who you listen to, of course, on which side, what is your assessment of what is genuinely the picture on the ukraine border tonight.— border tonight. aside from what the kremlin might _ border tonight. aside from what the kremlin might be _ border tonight. aside from what the kremlin might be saying, _ border tonight. aside from what the kremlin might be saying, i- border tonight. aside from what the kremlin might be saying, i think- border tonight. aside from what the kremlin might be saying, i think we | kremlin might be saying, i think we have to verify anything that they are saying in terms of potential troop movements or withdraw. that is the reality of the facts on the ground. right now, the secretary—general said we have not seen those kinds of movements take

place, but we have to verify. there is an old adage that says nothing is true until the kremlin denies it. they've been denying invasion for a very long time, and i think until we see actual actions taking place, there is no reason to think that we are in a different situation that we have been for the last several weeks. ~ . , ., i. ., weeks. which is, to your mind, at some point. _ weeks. which is, to your mind, at some point. put— weeks. which is, to your mind, at some point, put in _ weeks. which is, to your mind, at some point, put in well— weeks. which is, to your mind, at some point, put in well tell- weeks. which is, to your mind, at| some point, put in well tell troops to cross the border. is that your assessment?— to cross the border. is that your assessment? ~ ., , , ., �* assessment? well, we obviously don't know when mr — assessment? well, we obviously don't know when mr putman _ assessment? well, we obviously don't know when mr putman wants - assessment? well, we obviously don't know when mr putman wants to i assessment? well, we obviously don't know when mr putman wants to do i assessment? well, we obviously don't know when mr putman wants to do or| know when mr putman wants to do or will do. we have to prepare for multiple scenarios. of course, a direct military invasion is one of those scenarios. i think there is some truth to what mr putin has said, that they will be pulling back troops, they will be de—escalating. this is what diplomacy is supposed to achieve. i would just caution

that even if that does happen and we are able to verify this kind of de—escalation. it's important to remember that putin can always bring those troops back. they are not promising to remove all the forces that now so surround ukraine from all sides, that now so surround ukraine from allsides, north, eastand that now so surround ukraine from all sides, north, east and south. we have to be very careful about what we make of any potential action. if we make of any potential action. if we see 20,000 troops leave, it doesn't actually change the situation on the ground significantly. so it's nothing to celebrate quite yet. i remains to be seen. in of terms the west and its response and what i west and its response and what western governments could or should be doing, what would be the next step they are as far as you are concerned? i step they are as far as you are concerned?— step they are as far as you are concerned? . , . ., . ., concerned? i mean, my concern all alon: has concerned? i mean, my concern all along has been _ concerned? i mean, my concern all along has been we _ concerned? i mean, my concern all along has been we are _ concerned? i mean, my concern all along has been we are constantly l along has been we are constantly reacting to mr putin's actions to what he saying, not saying, he has kept us in a really ambiguous guessing game, unfortunately, that still where we are. we're all trying to take stock and understand, is this real de—escalation, or this anotherfalse this real de—escalation, or this another false misinformation campaign for moscow? the truth is that we have to figure out what our

agenda is, and our agenda should be to secure europe, to security alliance, which means investing in nato's eastern flank, regardless of what mr putin does, continue to support ukraine, because this is not a one—off crisis, even if we see de—escalation today, and i certainly hope that we do, this will not and any time soon. we are in a continuous crisis mode with russia over ukraine, and it's not going anywhere for the foreseeable future. that is the reality we have to prepare for. that is the reality we have to prepare for-— that is the reality we have to prepare for. that is the reality we have to --rearefor. ., , ., u prepare for. you use the word "we" which suggests _ prepare for. you use the word "we" which suggests that _ prepare for. you use the word "we" which suggests that countries i prepare for. you use the word "we" which suggests that countries are l which suggests that countries are speaking in concert on the same page, you question whether that is really indeed the case.— really indeed the case. absolutely. it's very unfortunate _ really indeed the case. absolutely. it's very unfortunate to _ really indeed the case. absolutely. it's very unfortunate to see - really indeed the case. absolutely. it's very unfortunate to see the i it's very unfortunate to see the sort of sideline diplomacy taking place from france and germany. we should be speaking with one voice. we should be united as the nato alliance, as europe and the united states together, speaking with one

voice of unity, when united stance. the biggest gift we can give to the kremlin is to expose the kinds of divisions that we have within the alliance because moscow has and will continue to exploit those divisions and continue to try to seek concessions. if they cannot get it from the alliance, they will try to get it from germany, france, and we really have to push back against that. so i hope that both the chancellor and president negron have realised that from their recent meetings and will do what they can to represent a united front when it comes to sanctions, security assistance and any other measures that the alliance will take.- that the alliance will take. doctor, thank ou that the alliance will take. doctor, thank you so _ that the alliance will take. doctor, thank you so much _ that the alliance will take. doctor, thank you so much and _ that the alliance will take. doctor, thank you so much and thank- that the alliance will take. doctor, thank you so much and thank you | that the alliance will take. doctor, i thank you so much and thank you for your time tonight there in washington, presidentand your time tonight there in washington, president and ceo for the centre for european policy analysis. the time now, at 17 minutes to 6pm. we will return to that news that came out of the states within the last couple of

hours involving prince andrew. of course, there has been an out—of—court settlement reached between prince andrew and virginia, and prince andrew will be making a substantial to virginia's charity in support of victims rights. just explain exactly what this means. there are no figures involved, but they have reached an out—of—court settlement. they have reached an out-of-court settlement-— settlement. they have indeed. i think the most _ settlement. they have indeed. i think the most important - settlement. they have indeed. i think the most important thing l settlement. they have indeed. i- think the most important thing about this is not necessarily the cash or the potential cash that we will never find out about, the potential cash that we will neverfind out about, and it appears that may be two payments there, went to virginia giuffre personally and another to her victims charity, but it may be more important to actually look at the wording and prince andrew's statement. earlier in the case, during his attempt to have the case, during his attempt to have the case thrown out, his lawyers, he

allowed his lawyers to go into court and say that she was effectively seeking a payday again stand, that she basically profited down the years from the epstein affair and was looking to bring another frivolous lawsuit against the prince, which was going to basically destroy his character. he denied all of this. interesting thing is she has now withdrawn her allegation against the prince, he has not cleared his name in this statement. there is no repeat here in this statement of his denials. what he does say is that prince andrew has never intended to me to misalign virginia giuffre's character and accepts that she has been a victim of abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks. i think that is a really significant ends 32 words there in this statement because her side, virginia giuffre's site and certainly some people close to her are taking this basically is a

victory, even though there is no legal admission of liability will stop now, and royalfamily terms, this means that this case goes away and is very importantjubilee year for the queen, but the fact is that virginia giuffre wales to take some indication from this because she said all along that she is speaking the truth, and that she wants her voice to be heard as a victim of abuse. this settlement statement tonight effectively allows her, from what we can tell, to carry on saying that stuff because the prince has accepted that her character cannot be maligned, and it's quite a sensational outcome, really. that is really striking. _ sensational outcome, really. that is really striking, dominic. _ sensational outcome, really. that is really striking, dominic. worth i really striking, dominic. worth reiterating one of your key points there, i think this statement, when you read it, it doesn't repeat prince andrew's denials. so from your perspective, that is a key

observation i your perspective, that is a key observation— observation i think it's a key observation. _ observation i think it's a key observation. you _ observation i think it's a key observation. you have i observation i think it's a key observation. you have to i observation i think it's a key i observation. you have to type us with the legal issue here. no formal admission of liability here, and one of the things which was interesting in the run—up to this in the weeks before hand, i recall virginia giuffre's layer getting an interview shortly after they whine or rather prince andrew's attempt to dismiss the case was thrown out. i recall him saying at the time that she would potentially be in the market for some kind of settlement. she doesn't want to go to trial for trial�*s sake. anyone who brings a case is told by their lawyers, if you can avoid going to trial, please avoid it, because it is so incredibly expensive and damaging. the potential for, incredibly expensive and damaging. the potentialfor, you know, blowback for years to come can be awful. so he was indicating that she was prepared to settle but he made clear in that interview that she wanted some recognition of what her words amounted to and what she'd

suffered and gone through, and in hindsight, that was clearly a coded signal to prince andrew's sighed that they were in the market to settle, maybe there was some talk there already of some kind of financial settlement there to make the case go away, but they also wanted to hear very clear words from the prince about virginia dupree's character and what she was saying. it appears that they had been satisfied with those words today. the case now goes away. she's going to get this payment. it is going to be a substantial amount to the charity, but from what we can tell, it hasn't come out to the public domain and come in and of this prevents herfrom repeating what domain and come in and of this prevents her from repeating what she said before about how she's abused and how she said she was abused and i think that's the most interesting thing about this.— i think that's the most interesting thing about this. dominic, thank you ve much thing about this. dominic, thank you very much indeed. _ thing about this. dominic, thank you very much indeed. with _ thing about this. dominic, thank you very much indeed. with that - thing about this. dominic, thank you | very much indeed. with that analysis of that settlement that has been reached in the waiting, specifically

the wording of that statement. very, very interesting observations there. just a little earlier, my colleague spoke to moira in the us, a former assistant attorney for the eastern district of new york. this assistant attorney for the eastern district of new york.— district of new york. this is the -e of district of new york. this is the type of case _ district of new york. this is the type of case where _ district of new york. this is the type of case where you - district of new york. this is the type of case where you really i district of new york. this is the i type of case where you really want to reach a settlement. here are the allegations they were so extreme, virginia giuffre seemed like she was going to be a very compelling witness, and the evidence as it is presented was going to be very difficult for prince andrew to dispute. so once you have the situation where you have lost the motion to dismiss the case, we know that you are going to be facing an intrusive deposition process, so there is a very small likelihood that you would actually succeed at trial, this is a really advantageous time for prince andrew to try and seek a settlement in this case. in

terms of what has come out of this statement, — terms of what has come out of this statement, how do you read the form of words _ statement, how do you read the form of words that they've used? from a legal— of words that they've used? from a legal point — of words that they've used? from a legal point of view, where does this leave _ legal point of view, where does this leave the _ legal point of view, where does this leave the two parties in this case? well, _ leave the two parties in this case? well, what — leave the two parties in this case? well, what you see here is that there was an attempt to reach a settlement that virginia giuffre could live with. she is somebody who had already been burned through a settlement process before and was obviously important for her to have prince andrew acknowledge something about the victims in this case. now, he did not go so far as to admit the allegations. obviously, that is something he could not have done without facing severe criminal ramifications if he had in fact admitted that. i don't think any lawyer would have advised him that he could have entered into a settlement where he actually apologised for committing battery or being involved in some way sexually with virginia giuffre when she was

underage. but what we side basically going as far as he could legally, excepting jeffrey epstein as a true criminal, as some of the who she'd not had that she should not have been involved with and recognising that there has in fact been countless victims from epstein. iflan countless victims from epstein. can i raise this question, because i suspect people who are watching this interview, certainly and maybe other countries as well be curious about this. you are a former attorney for new york, part of eastern new york, if you saw a case like this that was settled at this stage, a civil case. would it raise questions that would make you go, actually, should we be looking back at this? should be looked at whether there was any criminal activity? should we be reviewing a case in light of civil settlement of this kind? sometimes he asked, settlement of this kind? sometimes he asked. as — settlement of this kind? sometimes he asked. as a _ settlement of this kind? sometimes he asked, as a federal _ settlement of this kind? sometimes he asked, as a federal prosecutor, i he asked, as a federal prosecutor, there are certainly times where you see a civil settlement and then you

do engage in some investigation afterwards, here, what i will say is that the southern district of new york, which had a successful trial against elaine maxwell had obviously invited jeffrey epstein before his death. they clearly were looking at prince andrew, and had they been able to amass enough evidence to charge him, i believe that they would have. one thing that i think could have happened is had additional evidence come out at the civil trial that could've been used in a criminal prosecution of prince andrew, that may have made a difference, but where it stands now, i doubt that the settlement would have any impact on a prosecution of prince andrew.— prince andrew. moira talking to us from the us- _ prince andrew. moira talking to us from the us. there _ prince andrew. moira talking to us from the us. there will— prince andrew. moira talking to us from the us. there will be - prince andrew. moira talking to us from the us. there will be much i prince andrew. moira talking to us i from the us. there will be much more in that story coming up shortly in the six o'clock news, just one more story to bring you before then. the world men's tennis player has told

the bbc that he is prepared to sacrifice playing in competitions including wimbledon and the french open rather than have a covid—19 vaccine. in an exclusive interview after losing that event to the australian open, he said he is not part of the anti—vaccine movement, but he supports people's right to choose. the bbc�*s in the garage and sat down with him. is widely he is widely held to be the greatest player of his time, in an era already blessed with legends. but now he is the most controversial, too. have you received any vaccination against covid? i have not. why? i understand and support fully the freedom to choose whether you want to get vaccinated or not. i have not spoken about this before and i have not disclosed my medical record and my vaccination status, because i had the right to keep that private and discreet.

but as i see there is a lot of wrong conclusions and assumptions out there, i think it's important to speak up about that and justify certain things. on december the 16th, djokovic tested positive for covid but only found out, he says, after mixing with young tennis players the following day. when he arrived in australia on january the 5th, he was held at the border. onjanuary the 6th, his visa was cancelled and he was detained. four days later, onjanuary the 10th, a judge overturned that decision, releasing him to compete. but four days after that, on the 14th of january, australia's immigration minister again cancelled his visa on grounds of public safety. djokovic appealed but lost, and left australia on the 16th of january. i was never against vaccination. me, as an elite professional athlete have always carefully reviewed,

assessed everything that comes in from the supplements, food, water that i drink, or sports drinks — anything, really, that comes into my body as a fuel. what do you say directly to anti—vaccination campaigners around the world who proudly declare novak djokovic is one of us? i say that everyone has the right to choose to act or say whatever they feel is appropriate for them. and i have never said that i am part of that movement. based on all the information that i got, i decided not to take the vaccine as of today. so do you have... as of today? yes. i keep my mind open, because we are all trying to find collectively a best possible solution to end covid. what would you say to the ordinary australian listening to you now and says, based on what they see in the news,

this guy thinks he's above the law, he thinks that he doesn't have to abide by the same rules as everybody else? australia has been through one of the most severe lockdowns that we had since the beginning of the pandemic. so i can only imagine how hard it was for australians and i sympathise and empathise with all the people. and i understand that there has been lots of, say, frustrations from australian people towards me and towards the entire situation and the way it was dealt with. i would like to say that i always follow the rules. the world number one insists that he did obey the rules in trying to enter australia, and distanced himself from the anti—vax movement. as things stand, if this means that you miss the french open, is that a price you would be willing to pay? yes, that is the price that i am willing to pay. and if it means you miss wimbledon this year, again, that is a price

you are willing to pay? yes. ultimately, you prepared to forgo the chance to be the greatest player that ever picked up a racket, statistically, because you feel so strongly about this jab? yes. i do. why, novak, why? why? because the principles of decision—making on my body are more important than any title, or anything else. i am trying to be in tune with my body as much as i possibly can. because a lot of people around the world would see the experience you've had, they'd see the public outcry, the headlines, the detention, the legal disputes, and they might just say, novak, mate, just take the damn jab. it doesn't hurt, it means you can play anywhere, it keeps you safe, it keeps everyone else safe, too. we all do things that we don't

want to do, that we are hesitant about, what's so hard about a bit of medicine? i respect everybody�*s decision to get vaccinated or do anything that they really think is correct for them. and i hope that people will respect my decision not to get vaccinated. and as i mentioned before — i have to repeat it again — i have to accept and i take all the consequences of my decision and i will probably not be able to play a lot of tournaments. djokovic insists he is keeping an open mind, but, for now, shows no sign of changing it. amol rajan, bbc news, belgrade. much more coming up injust a moment on the six o'clock news. i'd marry with you for that. but right now, here the weather. damage and disruption this week with two storms crossing the shores of

the united kingdom. deadly impacts on wednesday in particular, units on friday. really on the cusp of that storm now that will be a hazard for travellers. temperature should stay above freezing because of the wind and still quite a bit of cloud around. more rain waiting to, and. during the on wednesday. another day clouding over, this debate of low pressure, but the story is all about the strength of the wind which will really escalate. the amber warning. it's the likely area of impact from the strongest of those winds, but those strong ones will be spelled widely. they could be some damage and disruption.

today at six, prince andrew settles out of court with the woman who accused him in a civil case of sexual assault. the duke has always denied the allegations made by virginia giuffre, and there's no admission of guilt in the deal. but he accepts she has suffered as a "victim of abuse." a possible court case had threatened to overshadow the queen's platinum jubilee celebrations, and the scandal the prince step bacvk from royal duties. we'll have the very latest from new york where the deal was made. also on the programme... russia claims it's pulling back some troops from the border with ukraine. president putin says he wants more talks, the west remains sceptical. mixed signals, i think at the moment. and all the more reason for us

to remain very tough and very united.