Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (shown here in New York City in September), has won the latest phase of her lengthy privacy case against a newspaper publisher over the published portions of a letter she wrote to her estranged father Thomas Markle after she married Prince Harry in 2018.
Stefan Jeremiah / AP
hide captions
switch captions
Stefan Jeremiah / AP
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (shown here in New York City in September), has won the latest phase of her lengthy privacy case against a newspaper publisher over the published portions of a letter she wrote to her estranged father Thomas Markle after she married Prince Harry in 2018.
Stefan Jeremiah / AP
LONDON – The Duchess of Sussex on Thursday won the latest stage in her lengthy privacy case against a British newspaper publisher over the publication of parts of a letter she wrote to her stepfather. his cold.
The Court of Appeal in London upheld the High Court’s decision that the publisher of Mail on Sunday and the MailOnline website illegally violated former Meghan Markle’s privacy by copying a large portion of a handwritten letter she sent her father, Thomas Markle, after she married Prince Harry in 2018 .
The affiliated newspapers protested the decision in the Court of Appeal, which held a hearing last month. Rejecting the appeal, senior judge Geoffrey Vos told the court on Thursday that “The Duchess had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of the letter. Those contents are personal, private, and not private. not a matter of legitimate public interest.”
The publisher said it was “deeply disappointed” and was considering an appeal to the UK Supreme Court.
In a statement, Meghan, 40, condemned the publisher for treating the lawsuit as “a game without rules” and said the ruling was “a victory not just for me, but for anyone who has ever feel scared to stand up and fight for what’s right.”
“Most importantly, now we collectively have the courage to reshape a tabloid industry that conditions people to be ruthless and profit from lies and pain,” she said. pain they create”.
The lawsuit centers on a letter Meghan said she only wanted her father to see
The affiliated newspapers published about half of the letter in five articles by August 2018. Their lawyers countered Meghan’s claim that she did not intend for anyone to see the letter other than. her father.
They said correspondence between Meghan and her then-media secretary, Jason Knauf, showed the duchess suspected her father might have leaked the letter to journalists and had written it in mind.
The publisher also argued that publishing the letter was part of Thomas Markle’s right to reply after a Everyone A magazine interview with five of Meghan’s friends accused him of being “cold and cruel” to his daughter in the run-up to her royal wedding.
But Vos said that the article, Mail on Sunday was described as “sensational”, being “launched as a new public revelation” rather than focusing on Thomas Markle’s reaction to negative media reports about him.
Meghan and Harry (shown here in New York City in September) give up their royal duties and move to the US in early 2020, citing what they say is unbearable intrusion and the racist attitudes of the British media.
Seth Wenig / AP
hide captions
switch captions
Seth Wenig / AP
A twist in the attraction is that Meghan has teamed up with the authors of a book about her and Harry
In their appeal, the Associated Newspaper has also argued that Meghan made private information public by partnering with Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand, the authors of Freedom Search, a sympathetic book about her and Harry.
The duchess’ attorneys have previously denied she or Harry collaborated with the authors. But Knauf said in court evidence that he provided information to the writers and discussed it with Harry and Meghan.
Knauf’s evidence, which had not been previously disclosed, was a significant turning point in the protracted case.
In response, Meghan apologized for misleading the court about the extent of her cooperation with the book’s authors.
The Duchess said she did not remember discussions with Knauf when she presented evidence earlier in the case, and said she had “absolutely no desire or intention to mislead the defendant or the court.”
Media attacks cited as Meghan and Harry give up royal duties
Meghan, former star of the American legal drama Suit, married Harry, grandson of Queen Elizabeth II, at Windsor Castle in May 2018.
Meghan and Harry announced in early 2020 that they give up royal duties and moved to North America, citing what they said was the intolerable intrusion and racist attitude of the British media. They have settled in Santa Barbara, California, with their two young children.
In her statement on Thursday, Meghan said she had suffered “deception, intimidation and calculated attacks” in the three years since the lawsuit began.
“The longer they pull it out, the more they can distort the facts and manipulate the public (even during appeals), making a simple case more complicated to generate more headlines.” and sell more newspapers – a model that rewards chaos over truth,” she said.
The affiliated newspapers argued that the case should go to trial over Meghan’s claims against the publisher.
The AP said in a statement on Thursday that it believes “a judgment should be made solely on the basis of evidence examined at trial”, especially because “Mr Knauf’s evidence raises questions about the trustworthiness of the Duchess.”
The latest ruling can be appealed
Attorney Mark Stephens, who specializes in media law and is not involved in the case, said he believes the publisher will appeal, although it would be unusual for Britain’s Supreme Court to hear the case as such. so. He said the publisher could also try to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
“There’s a problem of principle here, which is whether this case should be closed before trial without disclosing, without examining the evidence,” Stephens said. The ruling did not address questions about whether the letter to Thomas Markle was “always intended for Meghan’s side to publish and be leaked and used as a summary document,” he added.
The affiliated newspapers “have a right to this trial, and I think that will prolong the pain for Meghan Markle,” Stephens said.
