Meghan, officially titled the
Duchess of Sussex, is suing publisher Associated
Newspapers over articles the Mail on Sunday
printed last year that included parts of a
handwritten letter she sent to her estranged
father, Thomas Markle, in August 2018.
At a hearing at London's High Court on Monday,
lawyers for the Mail said "Finding Freedom", a
biography of Harry, 36, and Meghan, 39,
published in August, appeared to have been
written with the extensive cooperation of the
duchess.
They were seeking to amend their case ahead of a
trial due to start in January, arguing that
Meghan's alleged cooperation with the book's
authors showed she intended some private details
to be made public, including the contents of the
letter.
Antony White, the paper's lawyer, told the court
some personal information could only have come
from the couple themselves or close friends
authorised to disclose it.
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2020/Sep/22/images/ads/current/charrons_bch041713.png)
The book "gives every appearance of having been
written with their extensive cooperation", he
said in a written submission.
Meghan's lawyer Justin Rushbrooke said there was
no evidence for the Mail's argument which he
said was based on assertions which were
"manifestly false".
"What the defendant is saying is we don't have
any evidence for this case ... we are relying on
inference. Inference is not evidence," he said.
One of the book's authors, Omid Scobie, also
gave a witness statement in support of Meghan in
which he describes the book as "an independent
and unauthorised project".
"Any suggestion that the Duke and Duchess
collaborated on the book is false," Scobie said.
"They did not authorise the book and have never
been interviewed for it."
White said Scobie's evidence "cries out for
rigorous testing under cross-examination".
[to top of second column]
|
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2020/Sep/22/images/ads/current/graue_20BLAZER_092120.png) PEOPLE INTERVIEWS
The paper argues that its publication of her
letter to her father in Feb. 2019 was justified
by Meghan's own "media fightback", which
consisted of anonymous interviews given on her
behalf by five of her friends to the U.S.
magazine People.
The court was told the Mail's case was that
Meghan had used her friends to influence the
media and encouraged them to act as her PR
agents.
Meghan denies that her friends were acting on
her behalf.
White argued that if she had not cooperated with
the book or allowed her friends to speak to its
authors, it was "inevitable" that Meghan would
have sued, which she was not doing, or stated
that the contents were invented.
Rushbrooke dismissed this as a "flimsy leap".
The trial is scheduled to start on Jan. 11 and
to last between seven and 10 days. At a hearing
on Monday, the court was told there would be
seven witnesses, of whom four will appear on
behalf of Meghan.
Meghan's legal team has budgeted just under 1.8
million pounds ($2.3 million) for the case,
while the Mail's costs are estimated at more
than 1.2 million pounds. The judge, Francesca
Kaye, said both amounts seemed "dispropionate"
as it was not a "high value" claim or complex
case, and was essentially a personal dispute.
She will give her ruling on whether the Mail can
amend its case at a later date.
(Reporting by Michael Holden, editing by Estelle
Shirbon, Mike Collett-White and Philippa
Fletcher)
[© 2020 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
Copyright 2020 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. |