The lawyer representing Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Saynex-lover of the king emeritus of Spain, this week accused Juan Carlos of trying to “avoid an inevitable trial”defending on Thursday that his claim for harassment can be tried in England and include acts prior to his abdication.
This 58-year-old Dane, who had a relationship with the then monarch between 2004 and 2009, presented a civil suit in 2020 in London, which is in the phases prior to the start of a possible trial.
The businesswoman, divorced from a German prince, uses his last name but is also known by her maiden name, Corinna Larsen.
The father of the current king of Spain, 85 years old, denies “emphatically” having subjected her to threats, intrusions, monitoring, hacking and defamation between 2012 and 2020 with the aim of recovering 65 million euros (73 million dollars) that he had given him.
King Juan Carlos I of Spain and Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein. Photo:
But his successive lawyers – he changed his legal cabinet twice in this case – have been seeking for two years to prevent a British court from judging the merits of the case.
After obtaining in December that the London Court of Appeals recognized the “immunity” of Juan Carlos until his abdication in 2014 in favor of Felipe VI, in recent days argued that the complaint has no basis or jurisdiction in England.
Es “a sweeping attempt to avoid an inevitable trial”lashed out the lawyer for the Danish businesswoman, Jonathan Caplan, who on Thursday dismantled the former king’s objections one by one.
Juan Carlos’ defender, Adam Wolanski, affirmed, at the beginning of these four days of previews, that the acts denounced by Larsen, from pressure to attend parties to surveillance and attacks on his reputation, “they are not harassment”.
But Caplan said Thursday that “the acts are linked, so that the totality can be considered as a course of conduct” of “a powerful man against a lonely woman”seeking to “obtain control of the claimant and the money given away.”
Juan Carlos I of Spain. Photo: Europa Press
‘Psychological injuries, anguish and other mental damage’: the arguments of the ex-lover’s lawyer
“Covert surveillance”, “stalking”, “harassment in the press”, “publishing defamatory information”, “sinister emails”, “threatening phone calls” are, among other things, acts that individually the British justice system has already accepted in other cases as “harassment”Caplan stated.
He also defended that, against the opinion of Wolanksi, the British law of protection against harassment (Protection from Harassment Act, PHA) can apply to the entire line of conduct despite the fact that some of his acts have not occurred on British territory.
He also argued that if the acts prior to the abdication cannot be prosecuted in England, they can may be included in the claim as “context”.
“The Court of Appeals did not say that these tickets cannot be used for purposes other than legal liability,” he said.
King Juan Carlos I of Spain and Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein. Photo: AFP
Some issues prior to the abdication, such as the delivery of the “gift” of 65 million euros in 2012are necessary in the context “to determine if what happened next was instigated by the king,” he said.
Going into more technical issues, his colleague Andrew Green accused the ex-monarch’s legal team of having incurred in “abuse of procedure” by the way and the moment in which they presented or modified some of their legal requirements.
In terms of jurisdiction, it argued that “the direct damage occurred in England, because it is here that the plaintiff suffered psychological injuries, anguish and other mental damage“.
Larsen, who since 2020 has been claiming compensation for psychological damage, recently added a claim for “loss of business and income” which according to Wolanski amount to 126 million pounds (165 million dollars, 146 million euros).
Judge Rowena Collins Rice of the High Court of London must rule on these prior issues to determine whether or not the case goes to trial. Her decision, scheduled after the summer recess, may be appealed to the Court of Appeals.
CA/ED