Her first comments on a federal judge’s decision to deny Andrews motion to dismiss her lawsuit comes after he was stripped of of his military titles and royal patronages by the Queen.
Ms Giuffre addressed the matter in a string of tweets on Thursday night, saying she was “pleased” that the case would move to trial.
“I’m pleased with Judge Kaplan’s ruling yesterday that allows my case against Prince Andrew to go forward. I’m glad I will have the chance to continue to expose the truth & I am deeply grateful to my extraordinary legal team,” she wrote on Twitter.
“Their determination helps me seek justice from those who hurt me and so many others. My goal has always been to show that the rich and powerful are not above the law & must be held accountable.”
I’m pleased with Judge Kaplan’s ruling yesterday that allows my case against Prince Andrew to go forward. I’m glad I will have the chance to continue to expose the truth & I am deeply grateful to my extraordinary legal team. 1/3
— Virginia Giuffre (@VRSVirginia) January 14, 2022
And she added: “I do not walk this path alone, but alongside countless other survivors of sexual abuse & trafficking.”
Earlier in the day, Buckingham Palace palace announced that the Duke of York will now defend the case as a “private citizen”, while it is believed he will cease to be called His Royal Highness (HRH) in any official capacity.
In a statement, the palace said: “With the Queen’s approval and agreement, the Duke of York’s military affiliations and royal patronages have been returned to the Queen.
“The Duke of York will continue not to undertake any public duties and is defending this case as a private citizen.”
Ms Giuffre is suing Andrew, 61, in New York for allegedly sexually assaulting her when she was a teenager.
She claims she was trafficked by convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein to have sex with Andrew when she was aged 17 and a minor under US law.
Andrew has strongly denied all of the allegations.
Earlier this week Judge Lewis Kaplan wrote in his decision that, “Ms Giuffre’s complaint is neither ‘unintelligible’ nor ‘vague’ nor ‘ambiguous.’”
“It alleges discrete incidents of sexual abuse in particular circumstances at three identifiable locations. It identifies to whom it attributes that sexual abuse.”