The
publisher of The Mail On Sunday has
lost a Court of Appeal challenge against a ruling in favour of Meghan Markle over the publication of a personal letter to her estranged father, Thomas Markle.
Judges
gave their ruling on Thursday on the publisher of The Mail on Sunday’s appeal to
overturn Meghan’s victory in their privacy battle over a letter to her
estranged father.
The
Duchess, 40, sued Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), also the publisher
of MailOnline, over five
articles that reproduced parts of a “personal and private” letter to
Thomas Markle, 77, in August 2018.
In a
powerful statement, Meghan said: “This
is a victory not just for me, but for anyone who has ever felt scared to stand
up for what’s right. While this win is precedent-setting, what
matters most is that we are now collectively brave enough to reshape a tabloid
industry that conditions people to be cruel, and profits from the lies and pain
that they create.
“From day one, I have treated this
lawsuit as an important measure of right versus wrong. The defendant has
treated it as a game with no rules. The longer they dragged it out, the more
they could twist facts and manipulate the public (even during the appeal
itself), making a straightforward case extraordinarily convoluted in order to
generate more headlines and sell more newspapers – a model that rewards chaos
above truth. In the nearly three years since this began, I have been patient in
the face of deception, intimidation, and calculated attacks.
“Today,
the courts ruled in my favor – again – cementing that The Mail on Sunday, owned by Lord
Jonathan Rothermere, has broken the law. The courts have held the defendant to
account, and my hope is that we all begin to do the same. Because as far removed as it may seem
from your personal life, it’s not. Tomorrow it could be you. These harmful
practices don’t happen once in a blue moon – they are a daily fail that divides
us, and we all deserve better.”
In a ruling on Thursday, Sir Geoffrey Vos,
Dame Victoria Sharp and Lord Justice Bean dismissed the appeal by Associated
Newspapers Limited (ANL).
Reading a summary of their decision, Sir
Geoffrey said: “It was hard to see what evidence could have been adduced
at trial that would have altered the situation. The judge had been in as good a
position as any trial judge to look at the article in People magazine, the letter and The Mail On Sunday articles to
decide if publication of the contents of the letter was appropriate to rebut
the allegations against Mr Markle.
“The judge had correctly decided that,
whilst it might have been proportionate to publish a very small part of the
letter for that purpose, it was not necessary to publish half the contents of
the letter as ANL had done.”
A spokesman for Associated Newspapers Limited
(ANL) said in a statement that the publisher is considering an appeal to the
Supreme Court. It read: “We are very disappointed by the decision of the
Court of Appeal. It is our strong view that judgment should be given only on
the basis of evidence tested at trial, and not on a summary basis in a heavily
contested case, before even disclosure of documents.
“No evidence has been tested in
cross-examination, as it should be, especially when Mr. Knauf’s evidence raises
issues as to the Duchess’ credibility. After People magazine published an
attack on Mr. Markle, based on false briefings from the Duchess’ friends
wrongly describing the letter as a loving letter, it was important to show that
the letter was no such thing. Both the letter and People magazine also
seriously misrepresented the reasons for Mr. Markle’s non-attendance at the
royal wedding. The articles corrected these matters and raised other issues of
public interest including the reasons for the breakdown in the relationship
between the duchess and her father. We are considering an appeal to the Supreme
Court in the United Kingdom.”
 |
| Meghan released a powerful statement following the decision |
At the
three-day hearing earlier this month, ANL argued the case should go to a trial
after Jason Knauf, former communications secretary to the Duke and Duchess of
Sussex, claimed in a witness statement that Meghan wrote the letter with the
understanding that it could be leaked.
He said that she had sent him an early draft
of the letter and that Meghan had written: “Obviously everything I have
drafted is with the understanding that it could be leaked so I have been
meticulous in my word choice, but please do let me know if anything stands out
for you as a liability.”
Meghan’s
barristers argued that the letter was “deeply
personal” and “self-evidently
was intended to be kept private”. In her written evidence, the
Duchess denied she thought it likely that her father would leak the
letter, but “merely recognized that this was a possibility”.
