|
 Meghan, 39, the wife of Queen
Elizabeth's grandson Prince Harry, sued
publisher Associated Newspapers after its Mail
on Sunday tabloid printed parts of the
handwritten letter she sent to her estranged
father, Thomas Markle, in August 2018.
Last month, her lawyers asked Judge Mark Warby
to rule in her favour without the need for a
trial which could have pitted her against her
father, who gave a witness statement on behalf
of the paper and who she has not seen since her
wedding in May 2018.
Warby ruled the articles were a clear breach her
privacy. The newspaper said it was considering
an appeal.
"After two long years of pursuing litigation, I
am grateful to the courts for holding Associated
Newspapers and The Mail on Sunday to account for
their illegal and dehumanizing practices,"
Meghan said in a statement.
She said the tactics of the paper and its sister
publications had gone for too long without
consequence.
"For these outlets, it's a game. For me and so
many others, it's real life, real relationships,
and very real sadness. The damage they have done
and continue to do runs deep," she said.
Meghan wrote the five-page letter to Markle
after their relationship collapsed in the run-up
to her glittering wedding to Harry in May 2018,
which her father missed due to ill health and
after he admitted posing for paparazzi pictures.
'TRIPLE-BARRELLED' ASSAULT
In two days of hearings last month, her lawyers
said printing the "personal and sensitive"
letter was a "triple-barrelled" assault on "her
private life, her family life and her
correspondence" and plainly breached her
privacy.
The paper argued the duchess intended the
letter's contents to become public and it formed
part of a media strategy, pointing out she had
admitted in court papers discussing it with her
communications secretary.
The Mail, which published extracts in February
2019, said it did so to allow Markle to respond
to comments made by Meghan's anonymous friends
in interviews with the U.S. magazine People.
"For the most part they did not serve that
purpose at all," Warby said in his ruling.
"Taken as a whole the disclosures were
manifestly excessive and hence unlawful. There
is no prospect that a different judgment would
be reached after a trial."
[to top of second column]
|
 He said the duchess had a
reasonable expectation the letter's contents
would remain private and the Mail had
"interfered with that reasonable expectation".
The judge also ruled the printed extracts were
an infringement of her copyright, but said there
needed to be a trial to decide damages over the
"minor" issue of who owned the copyright,
because of the involvement of senior royal aides
in its drafting. "We are very
surprised by today's summary judgment and
disappointed at being denied the chance to have
all the evidence heard and tested in open court
at a full trial," the paper said in a statement.
"We are carefully considering the judgment's
contents and will decide in due course whether
to lodge an appeal."
There will be a hearing on March 2 to discuss
next steps in the case.
Prominent British media laywer Mark Stephens
said the verdict without a trial was unexpected.
"This is a bad day for press freedom and a good
day for the duchess," he told the Daily
Telegraph newspaper. "Nobody saw this judgment
coming." Meghan and Harry's
relations with Britain's tabloid press collapsed
after they got married, with media intrusion a
major factor in their decision to step down last
March from royal duties and move to the United
States with baby son Archie.
The couple have said they would have "zero
engagement" with four papers, including the
Daily Mail, accusing them of false and invasive
coverage.
"The world needs reliable, fact-checked,
high-quality news. What The Mail on Sunday and
its partner publications do is the opposite,"
said Meghan.
"We all lose when misinformation sells more than
truth, when moral exploitation sells more than
decency, and when companies create their
business model to profit from people's pain."
(Reporting by Michael Holden; Editing by Janet
Lawrence and Marguerita Choy)
[© 2021 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2021 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content |
