Associated Newspapers is considering Supreme Court appeal of privacy ruling in Meghan Markle lawsuit

The Mail On Sunday, the publisher of The Mail revealed today that they are considering appealing to the Supreme Court following a Court of Appeal appeal in which it was denied a decision against The Duchess of Sussex’s publication of Thomas Markle’s personal letter.

Meghan, aged 40, filed a lawsuit against Associated Newspapers Limited (“ANL”), publisher of MailOnline. The five articles reproduced part of Meghan’s August 2018 letter, Thomas Markle (77).

The High Court judge in the case ruled in Meghan’s favor without any trial. ANL appealed and argued that Meghan’s claim against ANL, including copyright and breach of privacy, should be tried.

At the hearing, lawyers representing the publisher stated that Markle wanted to respond to points raised by Meghan’s friends who gave an interview to People magazine in America.

Today’s ruling by Sir Geoffrey Vos and Dame Victoria Sharp, as well as Lord Justice Bean, dismissed the appeal of the publisher.

A spokesperson for Associated Newspapers stated that they were considering appealing to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

“We are deeply disappointed in the Court of Appeal decision. We strongly believe that judgement should only be made on the evidence presented at trial. It shouldn’t be made on a general basis in highly contested cases, or before disclosure of any documents. Cross-examination has not been conducted as required, particularly when the evidence of Mr Knauf raises questions about the credibility of Duchess.

People magazine had published an attack against Mr Markle based upon false information provided by the Duchess’s closest friends. They wrongly described the letter’s contents as loving letters. We wanted to make it clear that this was not the case. People magazine and the letter also misrepresented Mr Markle’s reasons for not attending the royal wedding. These issues were corrected by the articles, which also raised concerns about the public’s interest in other topics such as the causes of the breakup between her and her father.

Meghan Markle sued Associated Newspapers Limited [ANL]A series of articles reproduced part of Thomas Markle’s August 2018 letter (pictured together). ANL is considering going to the Supreme Court after it lost a Court of Appeal challenge

Andrew Caldecott, QC for the publisher had said to the court that the People article accuses Mr Markle having ‘cold-shouldered’ his daughter during the build up to her marriage to the Duke. He also claimed she lied about him being shut out by her.

Jason Knauf is the former communications secretary for the Duke and Duke of Sussex

According to the barrister, it implied that Mr Markle gave a “cynical response” and refused to reconcile with her in a “loving letter”. All while Meghan was ‘dutiful and supportive.

Sir Geoffrey Vos dismissed the appeal of the publisher today. He stated that it was difficult to discern what evidence might have been presented at trial which would have changed the circumstances. The judge was in a good position to examine the People magazine article, The Mail On Sunday articles and the letter to determine if the publication of those contents is appropriate in order to refute the accusations against Mr Markle.

“The judge decided correctly that while it may have been proportional to publish only a small portion of the letter, it was not required to publish all of it as ANL had.

Meghan wrote evidence that she denied that it was likely her father would leak her letter. However, she acknowledged that there were possibilities.

Jason Knauf was the former communications secretary of the Duke and Duchess, but he now works for Harry’s brother William. He claimed that Meghan had written the letter in the knowledge that it could leak.

She said that she had sent him an earlier draft of her letter.

Court of Appeal heard also that Mr Knauf gave information to Omid Scobie, Carolyn Durand and authors of Finding Freedom. Meghan apologized for misleading them about the information he provided.

Today’s verdict stated that this was, at most, an unfortunate memory lapse on her part.

The statement continued: “The evidence provided had also been extensively publicized in both national and international media.”

The new evidence was admitted in these circumstances because it was focused more on the letter’s drafting and information the Duchess had about contacts between Kensington Palace Communications Team members and authors of ‘Finding Freedom’. It did not address the appeal.

The Court of Appeal found the evidence of very little help, but noted that Duchess had offered to apologise to the court regarding the pleading she received on her behalf. She stated that she was unsure if and how much the Communications Team were involved. New evidence provided by Mr Knauf indicated that he had given some information to authors of the Book without the Duchess’s consent’. 

Texts saved using the pseudonym “Tilly” show Meghan writing an email to Jason Knauf (ex-communications secretary for the Sussexes). 

Meghan said she felt ‘cathartic’ after she wrote the letter. She also added that she had ‘troubled over every detail that could be altered’  

Court of Appeal heard Mr Knauf provided information to Finding Freedom author Omid Scobie, Carolyn Durand. Meghan then apologized for misleaving the court. Emails released this month reveal that Meghan and Harry discussed the book with their advisers.

The Mail on Sunday – the Daily Mail’s sister paper – sought to defend itself against Meghan’s privacy claims by arguing she herself had allowed US magazine People and the Finding Freedom authors Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand to be briefed to produce ‘favourable’ versions of her life story, which the royal couple denied doing.

Five close friends agreed to help by providing interviews anonymously for People magazine. It has 35 million worldwide readers. Meghan claims she didn’t know anything about the matter

Today’s verdict stated that Associated Newspapers argued the judge did not realize the extent to which People magazine had misinterpreted Mr Markle. People magazine claimed that he had cold-shouldered his child at the wedding and lied about how she shut him out. People magazine also suggested that he ignored her pleas in a love letter for reconciliation.

The Court of Appeal stated that it had been right for the judge to determine that one paragraph of this Letter could have been justifiedly used to refute People magazine’s allegation that the Duchess was in love with the Duchess. However, the actual Letter was intended to be a Letter to Mr Markle reprimanding him for his comments to the press and asking that he stop.

The judges rejected today’s appeal and stated that: ‘The Court of Appeal upheld judge’s determination that the duchess could have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the contents of the correspondence.

“Those contents were private, personal and did not concern legitimate public interests. Articles in Sunday’s Mail on Sunday violated the reasonable expectation of privacy of the Duchess and weren’t a justifiable or proportionate way to correct inaccuracies in the letter.

Meghan made the following statement today after the public hearing: “This is a win not just for myself, but for all who have ever been afraid to fight for what’s right.”

“This win sets a precedent, but what is more important is the fact that together we have shown courage and are now able to remake a tabloid sector that exploits people’s suffering and makes a living from their lies.

‘From day one I have treated this lawsuit as an important measure of right versus wrong.’

In a previous statement, the Duchess said that Prince Harry and she did not collaborate with writers on the glowing biography.

On December 10, 2018, she had an email exchange with Jason Knauf, including some background information about her ex-family and her story of the Queen’s Tiara incident.

In writing, she stated to the judges that “Mr. Knauf provided some information for us and we are grateful that I was able to verify that.”

Meghan’s lawyers demanded that the court in September 2020 ‘neither they’ [duchess]Her husband and her neither co-operated to create ‘their account of events.’ In November 2015, the duchess signed a statement stating that she did not know the extent to which the declaration was true. [palace]Communication team involved in the information provision for the book.

Meghan, however, told the court “When I accepted…” [that]I was not privy to these emails, and I am sorry that these conversations were not recalled by me at the time. It was not my intention or desire to deceive the court or defendant.

A tranche of text and email messages was sent between Harry and Meghan by their palace advisors, and also to the Court of Appeal. It covered August 2018 through December 2018.

According to court records, Prince Charles ‘constantly berating Harry’ over Harry’s relationship with Thomas Markle.

Meghan claimed that the heir of the throne, and senior royals, had asked Harry to do the following: “Can’t she go and see him? And make this stop?”

But the Duchess of Sussex refused to fly to America, and complained that the Royal Family ‘fundamentally don’t understand’ – even after she and Harry tried ‘endlessly explaining the situation’ to them, it was claimed.

Meghan claimed Harry was hurt by the conflict she had with her father, after he failed to attend her 2018 wedding. He had previously given several interviews so she wrote a letter. She described the letter as being written “in the spirit and facts, without seeming to have been orchestrated”.

The claims were made in a text Meghan sent to Jason Knauf, palace media advisor on August 22, 2018. She sent a text message to Jason Knauf, the palace media adviser, on August 22, 2018, in which she claimed that her actions were triggered by seeing H’s pain. [Harry].

‘Even after a week with his dad and endlessly explaining the situation, his family seem to forget the context – and revert to ‘can’t she just go and see him and make this stop?’

The blunt message, sent just three months after Meghan joined the Royal Family, went on: ‘They fundamentally don’t understand, so at least by writing, H will be able to say to his family… ‘she wrote him a letter and he’s still doing it.’ It protects my husband against constant berating. This form of action may also give my father some time to think.

Just weeks prior, Prince Charles had taken over to deliver Meghan at St George’s Chapel Windsor Castle after her father’s cardiac arrest.

Meghan then added: ‘Obviously all I have drafted was with the understanding of it being leaked. So I have been very careful in word selection but I would appreciate your feedback if you find anything that is a liability.