...
By Jack Royston
Chief Royal Correspondent
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has been served a summons to give evidence as a witness over how he obtained around $1 million of funding for his former Swiss ski chalet after becoming the first royal to be issued a witness summons in more than 150 years.
A Turkish woman, Nebahat İşbilen, is suing her financial adviser, Selman Turk, accusing him of mismanaging her money for his own personal gain, which he denies.<
One aspect of a complicated case involves İşbilen claiming that Turk told her she needed to give former Prince Andrew the money as payment for help arranging her Turkish passport. Turk disputes the account, arguing that she believed Mountbatten-Windsor would use his contacts in Turkey to help her husband, who was in prison there.<
Read More on Analysis
A High Court judge has granted Turk permission to call Mountbatten-Windsor as a witness to give his own account of how he came to receive the money, which he used to fund a Swiss ski chalet. Mountbatten-Windsor has not been accused in the case. He is facing a separate investigation by Thames Valley Police, in England, over allegations of misconduct in public office, which he denies.
Andrew Lownie, author of biography Entitled, told Newsweek: "This is very bad news for the Monarchy, even if Andrew was being paid £750,000 [around $1 million] to talk to people in Turkey that would be a breach of his responsibilities. I think this is huge and it could be one of the bits that unravels Andrew."
The trial is due to begin in November and Mountbatten-Windsor's evidence in mid-December.
Newsweek approached Mountbatten-Windsor's legal team by email for comment.
...
Why It Matters
It is the first time since 1870 that a British royal family member has been issued a court summons, and if his testimony goes ahead, it will expose Mountbatten-Windsor to cross examination by a lawyer under oath in a public forum for the first time.
The last time he answered questions in any kind of public forum was the November 2019 BBC Newsnight interview that precipitated the end of his career as a working royal. That sitdown was about his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein and allegations that he had sex with Virginia Giuffre when she was a 17-year-old sex trafficking victim of Epstein in 2001, which he has always denied. The current High Court case is not related to Epstein in any way.
Related Story
Ex-Prince Andrew Faces New Epstein Pressure if Democrats Win Midterms
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor's Testimony in High Court Case
While the case does not relate to Epstein, it does relate to another subject long debated in the U.K. media: where Mountbatten-Windsor's money came from.
A High Court ruling by Judge Adam Johnson, seen by Newsweek, states that İşbilen accused Turk of "saying she needed to make a purported 'gift' of £750,000 by way of payment for assistance the then Duke of York had provided in relation to Mrs İşbilen’s Turkish passport. Mrs İşbilen alleges this representation was false, as Mr Turk well knew at the time; and consequently, he was dishonest in making it."
Turk denied any dishonesty and, according to the judgment, says: "İşbilen made her gift to the then Duke of York on her own initiative and for her own reasons."<
"In summary, he alleges that by 15 November 2019, Mrs İşbilen had developed the perception that the Duke of York, through his connections in Turkey, might be able to assist her husband, in prison there," Johnson wrote. "In order (as she saw it) to create goodwill with the Duke, she arranged to make the gift referred to. That was nothing to do with any assistance regarding her Turkish passport."<
Johnson noted that İşbilen and Turk have tried to cast doubt on each other's reliability as witnesses. It will be up to the court to determine the facts.<
"In March 2021, however, Mrs İşbilen’s solicitors wrote to the Duke, as a result of which the funds were paid back," Johnson noted. <
Turk alleged in his own witness statements that Mountbatten-Windsor and Sarah Ferguson, the royal's ex-wife, joined him at a dinner with İşbilen at which her husband's imprisonment was discussed along with a possible gift to Princess Beatrice, Mountbatten-Windsor's daughter.<
At the dinner, "Mrs İşbilen indicated she was intending to make a small gift for Princess Beatrice’s forthcoming wedding," according to Turk's evidence summarized in Johnson's judgment. "The Duke offered certain information that he indicated he had obtained about Mr İşbilen, including as to the specific nature of the allegations against him."
According to Turk, Mountbatten-Windsor later indicated no gift was expected but İşbilen gave the money anyway in November 2019. <
"At a meeting with the Duke 4 or 5 days later, Mrs İşbilen called Mr Turk; Mr Turk says he passed his phone to the Duke who thanked Mrs İşbilen for her gift," Johnson wrote in his summary. "Following that, Mr Turk says he had further meetings with the Duke at which they discussed Mr İşbilen’s case."
The court is also considering claims of an additional loan of more than £768,000, also said to have been made in connection with the ski chalet.
At one stage, Mrs. İşbilen had sought to sue Mountbatten-Windsor, but the pair settled out of court and produced a set of agreed facts noting that “[n]one of the Recipients ever communicated with Mrs İşbilen directly. All of the Recipients dealt (so far as relevant) only with Mr Turk.”
Can Andrew Avoid Giving Evidence?
The judgment noted that "a witness served with a witness summons may apply to have it set aside or varied" and one option for the former prince is to try to submit a written statement in place of answering questions in court.
Allan Maidment, consultant and head of regulatory at MSB Solicitors, told Newsweek by email: “The prospect of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor giving evidence before the High Court will undoubtedly attract significant public and media interest, particularly given the allegations of civil fraud at the centre of the proceedings.
“However, his former royal status does not place him above the law or prevent him from being called as a witness and questioned about his involvement in the matters before the court."
Questioning would be focussed solely on the issues relevant to the case and would not stray into some of the other more high-profile allegations against him and his friendship with Epstein will be off the table.
“While many may be hoping for a revealing insight into the former prince’s affairs, the court will be focused on the facts relevant to the case, rather than wider questions surrounding his personal life," Maidment said. "The judge will have the power to restrict questioning to matters directly relevant to the proceedings, and there may also be efforts to limit his evidence to a written witness statement.
“It remains to be seen whether his evidence will raise further questions about his judgement and actions, but one thing is certain: taking the witness stand would be an uncomfortable prospect for the former prince.”
What Will Andrew Be Asked About
Johnson's judgment gives a detailed account of what Turk's attorney wants to ask Mountbatten-Windsor, including "evidence that Mr Turk discussed the issue of Mr İşbilen’s imprisonment with the then Duke at various points from October 2019 onwards; evidence that the then Duke attended a dinner at which Mr İşbilen’s situation was discussed; evidence that discussions about Mr İşbilen continued after the dinner; evidence that the Duke thanked Mrs Işbilen on the telephone for the gift she had made (i.e., the £750,000 paid on 15 November 2019); evidence that there was a discussion
with the then Duke about a loan from Mrs İşbilen to be used in connection with a Swiss chalet; evidence that Mr Mountbatten-Windsor was aware from Mr Turk that Mrs İşbilen was extremely eager to make both the gift and the loan."
Additionally, there would be questions about "what the then Duke in fact did to obtain information about or to assist Mr İşbilen in Turkey" and his “knowledge or belief as to Mrs İşbilen’s expectations, involvement and control over the transactions referenced above.”
"We are pleased that permission has been granted, as it is important that the Court has as full an evidential picture as possible. We understand this to be the first time since the then Prince of Wales (the future Edward VII) in the Mordaunt divorce case of 1870 that a member of the Royal Family will be subject to a Witness Summons."
Turk's attorneys at Janes Solicitors welcomed the summons in an online statement: "The Judge concluded that the proposed evidence that Mr Turk wishes to adduce from Mr Mountbatten-Windsor appears relevant to allegations of dishonesty advanced against Mr Turk and that, in the circumstances, it would be unfair and unjust to prevent him from seeking to adduce that evidence at trial."
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Daniel Orton and Dave Siminoff.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines