Former Prince Andrew has just been arrested in Norfolk

Lemonjam I absolutely agree with you.

If there is enough evidence for a trial then a trial will take place. What is more, if he is sent to prison he will serve his sentence.

At least having been educated at boartding school and I understand that the regime at Gordonstoun was gruelling, followed by 22 years service in the navy. He will be well used to community living in cramped accommodation and poor food.

I think he has a naval pension of about £20,000 a year and is about to ualify for a state pension of around £7,000 as he paid NI contributions during his naval service.

A retirement income of £27,000, particularly if his brother picks up the bill for utilitiesin his new home, should enable him to live in uiet comfort and afford the local golf clubs fees.

Yes Allira that’s the risk isn’t it? He can of course refuse to give evidence - but apparently he was also advised not to do the Maitless interview. And being a bear of very little brain …….

Grandma70s

I’m glad the late Queen didn’t live to see this. It can’t be easy for King Charles, either.

Really good point. The late Queen had enough dramas in her last years, I'm glad she was spared this.
Hard for Charles, but I think he's pretty fed up with Andrew and you don't feel the shame & responsibility for a brother that you do for a son.

LemonJam

Primrose 10.05: "Apparently he could abscond to the Middle East and not have to face being questioned in a court of law".

This is one of the many things that the police would have considered to determine whther to carry out a Voluntafty Interview ( not under arrest) versus arrest and detain. It will also no doubt play into decision, if related on bail today, or tomorrow what bail conditions to impose- i..e to not leave the country, to ensure that he is available to answer further questions during investigation, maybe report to the police station at designated periods and specific times. When any one breaches their bail conditions they will be further arrested and charged with breach of bail- added to original charges making everything even worse when it gets to court...

You have muddled me up with another poster. I never said that.

Tuliptree

Even if he pled guilty, there would be information made public about the charges and information needed for sentencing.

Yes, but probably less than if he tried to defend himself against cross-examination by a keen barrister in court.

I would like to believe what you say Lemonjam but there is also the reputational damage to the RF from what might come out at a trial. Of course due process would be followed but this wouldn’t necessarily mean a trial would take place. There are many hurdles to jump.

If he goes to prison, I doubt he will come out again like Epstein. Knows too much.

If AMW hasn’t already destroyed evidence, asking him to come to the police station would have given him the nudge to do so. His current and former homes being searched, so warrants were ready.

It won't be a civil trail as was VG's. It will be a crown prosecution, criminal trial if it goes ahead. Not sure anyone can get out of that though of course we hear of criminals trying to bribe jurors...

A guilty plea, particularly when offered early and not at the last minute ( AMW' solicitor should advise him of that today if he feels the evidence is strong in disclosure) merely provides the basis to reduce sanction/ sentence.

petra

Tuliptree

Charleygirl5

He can't be penniless, he must have some savings. It may not be the millions he may need as he will want to hire top drawer solicitors and lawyers, and they come at a price.

Someone will bankroll him surely. The main aim will be to stop it coming to trial.

I don’t think it will. 😡

I don’t either. I think he will be strongly advised to plead guilty to ‘avoid further damage to the monarchy’, with maybe the offer of a council flat somewhere when/ if he’s released.

WWM2; "Bet there is no trial though"
Iif there is sufficient evidence to have 51% ( usual measure) of likelihood of successful prosecution there will be a trial. The Royal Family would also want there to be a trial I would suggest.

It is in the public interest to maintain confidence in the police, DPS and also that there is not one rule for the RF and another for ordinary members of the public. I would speculate the RF is keenly aware of this and King Charles- as he made clear in his statement today- he do everything he can to assist the police and everything he can to demonstrate to the public that the RF is cooperating and not expecting a different outcome for AMW than for anyone else.

That would be a horrendous reputational and constitutional risk to the RF if due process does not take place and is seen not to take place. If it is seen to take place fairly and properly that gives the RF the best chance to separate AMW' actions, decisions and choices as an individual from the RF and the institution of the monarchy.

Even if he pled guilty, there would be information made public about the charges and information needed for sentencing.

Very helpful summary LemonJam, lots of unknown information in there. Would they make him surrender his passport?

petra

Tuliptree

Charleygirl5

He can't be penniless, he must have some savings. It may not be the millions he may need as he will want to hire top drawer solicitors and lawyers, and they come at a price.

Someone will bankroll him surely. The main aim will be to stop it coming to trial.

I don’t think it will. 😡

Well, he could fall on his sword (he will have one as a Naval Officer), and plead guilty, in which case it would not go to trial.

Bail can be pre charge of formal charges already made. Further charges can also be added in the time period before going to court....Yes the police can impose bail conditions such as curfew, electronic tagging , non contact rules, IF they have reasonable grounds at that stage to suspect an offence e and deem it necessary and proportionate.

Primrose 10.05: "Apparently he could abscond to the Middle East and not have to face being questioned in a court of law".

This is one of the many things that the police would have considered to determine whther to carry out a Voluntafty Interview ( not under arrest) versus arrest and detain. It will also no doubt play into decision, if related on bail today, or tomorrow what bail conditions to impose- i..e to not leave the country, to ensure that he is available to answer further questions during investigation, maybe report to the police station at designated periods and specific times. When any one breaches their bail conditions they will be further arrested and charged with breach of bail- added to original charges making everything even worse when it gets to court...

Good stuff.

Bet there is no trial though.

Thanks LemonJam, that clarifies a lot for me.

LemonJam

Please feel free to disregard if too much detail but read through the posts and hope this clarifies some of the issues that were mentioned.

Very helpful. I have one question - if a DP is bailed but not yet charged, could they be tagged?

Please feel free to disregard if too much detail but read through the posts and hope this clarifies some of the issues that were mentioned.

During the police interview , police may show some evidence, ie what might be known from Epstein files and ask questions about it. At the end of the interview, welfare questions are asked to make sure DP is not thinking of self harming etc.

Then DP taken back to cell. Processing may take place at this stage- eg, finger prints, photo, DNA, body samples etc or earlier or later.

DP waits until after interviewing police officer/s have spoken to their superior officer that day- who then speaks to DPS to assess likelihood of conviction. Plus what further time period might be needed to gather more evidence. Options, remand to prison ( as a risk to the public), Bail either pending further enquiries or to attend court asap, that day or the next depending how busy they are, release without further charge etc. Bail has conditions, ie to return to the station at a future date, certain time- could be weekly or a longer gap- and a court date if not immediately required normally set three months ahead- to facilitate further enquiries and because they have a back log.

Once that process has concluded DP person goes back to cell and waits for that decision.

Thanks LemonJam for that information.

Just a wee history update.
Charles the First was arrested by the Roundheads.
The Duke of Windsor should have been, for his treason during WW2, when he encouraged the Germans to keep bombing London, to break the citizens. (Just learned about that recently from a BBC programme)
Okay, now back to the main topic.

I have just got home from a local police station. The person I supported was arrested in the early hours of the morning, then this morning had the police interview that I was supporting was released on police bail after pending further enquiries.

A Voluntary police interview in the UK allows a suspect to to attend a police station by consent, without being arrested. Wheres a "Detained" Interview follows an arrest where freedom to leave is removed. Both involve police caution, legal representation and potential charges. Voluntary interviews are usually less intrusive, the interviewee is free to leave at any time but both carry the same risks. If someone does not attend a V interview after the police have invited them, or they leave and do not engage in the V interview they will be arrested, charged and made subject to detained interview.

AMW has had months to take legal advice and for himself or his legal rep to offer him coming in for a police interview. It is publicly known he has not done this and that neither has he responded to US authorities to similarly attend the uS equivalent of a Voluntary interview.

As a result of Andrew not coming forward voluntarily to date ( the police had little to no potential evidence of misconduct in public office until Epstein files' release to arrest) and in context of the seriousness of the allegations, the inevitable massive public scrutiny and the necessity for the Police Force to be shown to be acting fairly, he can absent himself from the country easily, and in the Public Interest- it seems logical to arrest him on suspicion. No one is given notice of date and time of arrest in such circumstances. There is no separate law or change to any process for members of the Royal family. The extent of any difference perhaps is that a custody suite has been chosen that no other detainees might be present. Custody suites and holding cells can be busy, noisy places. DP's at any time may be under the influence of drugs and alcohol and calling out expletives, acting up, self harming etc.

On arrest in the UK the police must specify the nature of the suspected offence and the grounds for the arrest to have the jurisdiction to detain and interview someone. They do not need to "formally charge" a DP at this initial stage. or provide a final, legal definition of the crime- it is a process to provide opportunity for the DP to give their account of alleged crime/s and to show their hand on the evidence they have to date. It is the choice of the DP, on advice of solicitor whther they give a no comment interview or are open, answer questions, share documentation in their possession to help the police with their enquiries etc.

On arrival at the police station the Detained Person ( DP) is processed by the custody Sergeant: personal details, health, medications, whether ever self harmed, thinking of it now, needs to see a health professional etc. They will have their rights read to them and offered a written copy. The DP will be asked whether they want anyone to be informed that they have been arrested and detained and if they would like free legal representation ( Duty Solicitor) or would like the custody sergeant to call a legal representative of the DP's choice. I would imagine AMW asked for someone in his family to be informed and to ask them to secure a Solicitor of his/their choosing and they would pay for that.

The DP then waits for Solicitor to arrive- in a police cell- offered food and drink as appropriate. When Solicitor arrives in police station they have meeting with the officer in charge of the investigation (OIC) called "disclosure" The police thus show the solictor what evidence they have so far gathered in their investigation. Solicitor then meets with DP ( officers will get them from their cell), their client, and gives legal advice.

Interview takes place under police caution, taped and recorded. The DP person will be asked 3 questions to make sure they understand the caution:
1) do you have to answer my questions today? answer no- as have right to be silent or say no comment,
2) However if you dont answer my questions today, and if this matter later goes to court, and you say something then in your defence, that you didnt say today, what might the court think? A less likely to believe me.
3) How will the court know what is said today? Recorded audibly and visually.

Petra I’m sorry to say that I’m afraid you’re very likely to be right. There are a multiplicity of ways in which a case can be stopped from coming to trial some of which might be described as ‘technicalities’. A very clever experienced barrister will be well versed in all of these. The main point though is that given the alternative of a trial, all the energies of his legal team will be put into trying to ensure a trial doesn’t take place. And my money would be on them being successful