[0:02]I was the chief crown prosecutor for Northwest England and also for London. For best part of 25 years, I prosecuted
[0:12]the most serious cases that have happened in the United Kingdom including involving very high-profile figures, very sensitive cases often involving
[0:22]secrecy, confidentiality, often at the heart of governments. And particularly for the last 10 years since I left prosecuting full-time, I've been trying to
[0:32]narrow the gap between what the authorities do and what the public know to create more transparency so the people understand what's being done in their name.
[0:43]>> Good morning. Well, there has been a very significant development in the investigation into the Epstein files and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor
[0:53]has been arrested this morning on suspicion of misconduct in public life.
[1:01]>> This case involves the arrest of a royal and the last royal to be arrested was in 1647. That is how significant it is. That it
[1:13]sends out a message that it doesn't matter who you are, it doesn't matter what your status is. You yourself will be held to account. And that I think can only be a good thing for society.
[1:23]I think everybody was um absolutely um flabbergasted, shocked by what happened. And what the police have to do is um look at
[1:34]all the evidence that they've collected and will collect also including what they would have uncovered during the searches and try and tie up what they found with the
[1:45]elements of the offense. And when they've got to a point where there is in their view reasonable suspicion, they can then present that uh to my former colleagues in the Crown
[1:55]Prosecution Service who will make a judgment as to whether or not that offense or any other offense is made out. He was arrested by Thames Valley Police
[2:05]for misconduct in public office. Which is extremely rare. I mean, I've prosecuted several times involving police officers, prison officers, that kind of thing, but it's
[2:17]a very rare charge. What it The elements of the charge are quite straightforward. You've got to be a public officer. You've got to then misconduct yourself. You've got to do so in such a way that
[2:28]it abuses public trust, and you've got to do so without any justification. Um That's Those are the elements of the offense. So, it's really very straightforward, you know, does the evidence
[2:39]match the elements of the offense? And if it does, then that offense should be charged. I wouldn't want to be Andrew Mac in Windsor. The penalty
[2:51]for misconduct in public office goes up to a maximum of life imprisonment. Um it is as serious as homicide. And if you are
[3:01]guilty of these offenses, then you should go to prison. And it I think that's something the public expect, because that's how you would deal with any other citizen in
[3:12]these circumstances. And I thought rule of law did apply to everybody. My former colleagues in the Crown Prosecution Service will, like myself, have dealt with
[3:23]very high-profile cases in the past. This will be dealt with by specialist team in the complex casework division, who on a daily basis deal with
[3:34]the most high-profile casework. You know, terrorism, international fraud, that kind of thing. What um adds some adds something to this is, of
[3:46]course, the fact that some of the witnesses will be themselves members of the royal family, potentially. Um and other politicians. That involves the
[3:56]international dimension. Um I think maybe people haven't understood. Just because we've seen emails flying back and forth or copies of emails
[4:08]in the Department of Justice's release of the Epstein files up to now, that's not enough for a trial. They're going to have to authenticate all of that material. Uh that means they're going to have to
[4:19]look at the original material. Uh that means going over to Washington and New York. That means collecting that evidence and bring it to the United
[4:29]Kingdom to enable to use that in trial. And you and I, we all know um that um documents can be uh manufactured.
[4:41]So, we've got to not just simply accept what those documents say. We've got to uh authenticate them and be sure that they are genuine emails
[4:51]that involved allegations that ultimately can then be taken forward. It's a much more complicated than people would like to think. Was there misconduct? Well, if you have
[5:05]evidence that somebody has been uh forwarding secret and confidential information to somebody else, that's misconduct. Did he do so uh that would abuse public trust? Well,
[5:16]somebody doing that would abuse public trust. And they can be no justification. So, those three elements are relatively straightforward to prove in this case and pretty much any other misconduct. The The issue here is going to be
[5:27]whether he was a public officer. Just being a member of the royal family doesn't make you a public officer. Um you know, it invariably we we've dealt with senior police officers and prison officers and
[5:38]uh and politicians um who are paid to do a job. And that, you know, those are relatively straightforward. In this case, we have a member of the royal family. And what what they're going to have to rely upon is his time as a trade envoy.
[5:50]>> Prince Andrew will now take up a position promoting British trade around the world. While his new job carries no salary, it's all expenses paid. >> Royal British envoys are ceremonial
[6:01]roles, and they aren't decision-making roles. What the prosecution and police will have to prove is that he was doing more than just being a ceremonial trade
[6:10]envoy. That he was actually making decisions. That he was acting in such a way that that would make him a public officer. >> It gives me great pleasure to welcome
[6:22]back His Royal Highness the Duke of York in his capacity as the United Kingdom's special representative for international trade and investment. >> As trade envoy, there will undoubtedly
[6:37]be contracts, memorandum of understanding with him and the the government of the time as to what his role was and responsibilities were.
[6:47]But, you know, I I was around back then and I remember him going to parts of the world quite frankly where we didn't see many British politicians
[6:58]going. Even back then it felt odd that he was functioning in the way that he was functioning. I have no doubt that as part of the preparation for or part
[7:08]of the investigation, they'll be looking at his own interviews that he's done back then. He gave up He was very public. He was regularly on the news or in newspapers
[7:19]explaining what he was doing and why he was doing it. >> I started in Germany last week. I then had to go to Doha to give a speech. I then went to Abu Dhabi before going to Iraq.
[7:30]>> Ridiculous as as it may sound, he was also forwarding emails regarding fixing contact with Gaddafi at the time when
[7:38]clearly Libya was in tremendous flux. And again, Libya was extremely wealthy back then, and the wealth was held by a small
[7:47]number of people. Having the information that he allegedly forwarded would give you a head start. And again, I can't see any issue with that being
[7:58]seen as misconduct. It's also a breach of the official secrets act. You know, any document produced by the British government which is for the
[8:08]British government is by its nature an official secret. >> People have asked me if I want to meet him as he does not know where to put his money. I wondered if Prince Andrew should make the intro.
[8:19]>> When you are allegedly fixing contacts for Epstein in relation to Gaddafi at a time when Gaddafi was perceived to be corrupt, there is no doubt in my mind
[8:31]that there can only be one explanation for that, which is what which is to give financial benefit to Epstein or anybody around Epstein at that time. And there was an enormous amount of money flowing in and out of Libya.
[8:42]It suggests somebody that's um allegedly systemically breaching the responsibilities placed upon him. So, when you give somebody um
[8:54]a you know, a head start, when you give somebody information they wouldn't have otherwise, then you're potentially creating an offense under the Bribery Act. So, you know, you have a misconduct
[9:04]in public office allegation, you have an official secrets act allegation, you have Bribery Act allegation, all flowing from the same material, which is why people shouldn't be just
[9:16]fixated on the misconduct. There are other potential crimes here. On one trip, he shared visitor reports for Hong Kong, Singapore, and Vietnam.
[9:27]Countries which you know, the kind of information that those reports would have would be extremely sensitive. They're often very candid conversations had by
[9:38]ambassadors and others about who to engage with, you know, what levers to pull to get information. And so, the fact that he gave that to somebody
[9:49]who could only potentially use it to gain fit personal benefit would undoubtedly also be misconduct in public office. What is telling is that in a number of these cases, the emails that
[10:00]he forwarded he only received moments before. So, it wasn't a case of him reflecting on how important this email might be, how confidential it was. He almost is
[10:12]acting like a postbox. He's automatically sending on material that he's received for his benefit and which was strictly confidential. You know, I I
[10:22]I can't begin to tell you. I've dealt with breaches of the Official Secrets Act and and others. And invariably, somebody who does that is reflecting upon why they did it and will they do it
[10:33]and they they try and find a way of doing it in such a way that perhaps they'll never be caught. The allegation here is that he asked for a certain document. He gets that document and within seconds he's
[10:44]forwarding it on to Epstein. Um I mean, it beggars belief. >> I was trafficked to Prince Andrew. >> How many times were you trafficked to him? >> Three times.
[10:55]This is a real photo. >> And that was the first time you met him. >> And that's the very first time I met him. >> Then you have the first tranche of the Epstein files which gave you some more information about this. We've seen
[11:06]yeah, photographs and and all manner of things coming forward. Slowly but surely, people have become more and more agitated, I think. Um that the evidence is there. Why are you not even bothering to investigate?
[11:18]There has been a a deliberate slowness on the part of the Metropolitan Police to investigate the sexual
[11:28]misconduct allegations. A deliberateness on their part not to bother looking at that. Uh and of course that gives the impression, does it not, um that if you're powerful, if you're rich, if you
[11:39]have status, you can abuse without with impunity. And you know, I've said it publicly, I am concerned that one of the reasons they didn't do so was because he was,
[11:51]until recently, a prince. Uh and that uh is just not acceptable. I've been calling for an investigation in relation to Andrew and Epstein and the sexual misconduct allegations for
[12:02]about 10 years now. And the initial view of the Metropolitan Police, which is the police for London, was that there was insufficient evidence for them to to even investigate. Uh
[12:14]they took some original statements from Virginia Giuffre or video uh and decided there was nothing for them to look at. In 2019, they carried out a review and
[12:24]decided, "Nah, we'll stay we'll stick with no investigation." In 2021, they said, "Nah, we'll stick with the investigation." In 2022, "Nah, we're going to stick with it." So, uh they've had many opportunities to take this
[12:36]forward. Uh now, however, suddenly, uh when when he's in the public eye and when people are now looking at all other areas of criminality, they're looking at
[12:46]this. I've said it publicly, um when the government is an alleged victim, the state moves at pace. When a woman is an alleged victim, state's extremely slow.
[12:56]Uh and they could have been doing this 10 years ago. They've The fact that they are now doing it, um it I suppose is welcome. Of course it's welcome. Uh but it's 10 years too late.
[13:08]And then of course in Virginia Giuffre's case, uh she's passed away. So, you know, a an alleged victim is no longer with us and and that's a tragedy, I I've no doubt, for their family. Historically, uh and I know it's true of
[13:19]every nation-state, people in power have been able to do what they want to do. Uh and very often establishment uh closes the door, closes the curtains,
[13:31]don't nothing to see here. You know, go and go and get somebody out there who is easy to get to and that damages confidence. We have we have a
[13:40]massive trust deficit globally. People don't trust anybody anymore. You know, the people people think well there's there's no justice in this world. And so it's only when you bring the powerful
[13:52]people to justice or at least try to that you are suddenly able to demonstrate that the law applies to everybody. You know, I'm a very strong believer as in the rule of law and the
[14:03]rule of law only works if it applies to everybody. But unfortunately, the impression that is being given that there are certain group of in society or societies
[14:14]that are just not going to be brought under the auspices of the rule of law and that's that's more than a tragedy. That is damaging. You know, why should I
[14:25]why should anybody then comply with the law if they think that there are you know, people in significant powerful positions that can do what they want. It's just unacceptable. Andrew was never alone during all the
[14:41]period that he was with Epstein. As a member of the royal family, he would have had close protection which is a number of um bodyguards and yes, they're meant to be discreet.
[14:53]Discretion is is not the same thing as protecting him if that's what they've done. You know, there are allegations that he
[15:03]told them to get dirt on Virginia Giuffre. That's beyond their remit. As part of the investigation, the police will have to talk to witnesses
[15:13]including the close protection officers, people who are involved in security, people involved in looking after diary, people who were involved in receiving phone calls.
[15:24]You know, this is you know, this is pre-smartphone much of some of it. So, you know, somebody would have picked up a a receiver. Uh you know, everybody will have to be spoken to. Uh and the
[15:36]historically, the palace ecosystem has been extremely secretive. Um you know, what the public don't know, they don't need to know. These people were always in a position where they knew stuff that you and I
[15:47]don't know. Uh and uh as as I've you know, as everybody knows, their responsibility is to us, not to them. We pay their bills. We pay their salaries. Therefore, they have to
[15:57]ensure that um if they see something that's criminal, that they do something about it. And they haven't. And I'm glad at least now um some of them are speaking on the
[16:08]record. My sense is that um we're we're at the beginning of something, not not near the end. There will be people who knew stuff. There were people who didn't do what
[16:18]they should have done. There were people within um the establishment um who turned a blind eye. There will be uh we've had allegations involving airports and trafficking within you know, London
[16:30]airports or British airports. We've had allegations that involve Europe Europe and other countries. Um this will go. This has legs. There will
[16:39]be others who will be implicated uh and there will be allegations involving them. And I hope that this is seen as an opportunity for a reckoning.
[16:50]>> When the reputational and now potentially criminal blast radius of the Epstein investigation reaches the monarchy, it is a global news event. >> The biggest crisis for the royal family
[17:00]since the death of Diana. >> Good afternoon, your majesty. Do you have any reactions to your arrest of your brother, sir? >> Your majesty, how are you feeling on >> Let me pay credit to the king. The king has been
[17:11]very clear in the last year or so uh in saying you know, let let the due process take its place. And also, of course, stripping Andrew of
[17:21]all of his titles. Uh It's a message, isn't it? That I, as the king, is saying to the citizen, "I'm with you." It's important that people in positions
[17:32]of power are held to account. I'm doing my bit, and now I want the state to do their bit. And I think that's uh that also has changed um the discourse
[17:41]and the dialogue. I've made my career on uh um ensuring in a position of power or responsibility is treated the same way as John and Jill who work in the local
[17:52]shop. You know, the the the community uh only becomes um a community when it sees that everybody is bound by the same laws.
[18:04]Uh and I think the message with the arrest of of Andrew was a very stark one. Namely, that regardless of who you are, regardless of
[18:14]what your status is, um if you commit a crime or alleged to have done so, um we will investigate it and potentially uh bring you to justice. You know, we need
[18:25]uh a clearing of um the damage that's been done. There are countries around the world, I imagine even Australia, uh who, you know, think, you know, is the royal family fit for purpose? You you
[18:36]know, you you were Prince Andrew. You were um Duke of Kent. Uh you had a pile of um medals and um um you know, you were perceived as uh
[18:47]you know, some of the most one of the most important people in this country. You still are eighth in line to the throne. Um but you are now facing um accountability.
[18:58]And that is only a good thing.