Meghan Markle’s victory Thursday in her long-running legal fight with the publishers of a U.K tabloid is significant in many ways, and not just because it could result in substantial financial damages and a public apology from the paper that published portions of the “deeply personal” letter she wrote her father.
It also means she’ll probably avoid a court trial, at which she might have had to face her estranged father, Thomas Markle. During the trial, she would also have been subject to cross-examination by attorneys for the tabloid, the Mail on Sunday, the Daily Beast reported.
Both prospects could have proven painful. Meghan is known to have dropped her father from her life after he backed out of her May 2018 wedding to Prince Harry and after he began criticizing her in interviews with the tabloids and British TV.
Going forward with a trial would have meant the Duchess of Sussex could be publicly grilled about seemingly inconsistent statements she made concerning her cooperation with the authors of a sympathetic biography and about whether she really intended for her letter to her father to be private.
Meghan’s legal victory Thursday came when the Court of Appeal in London ruled in her favor against Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Mail on Sunday as well as the Daily Mail and the Mail Online, the Daily Beast, People at other outlets reported. The U.S.-born, former TV actress had sued Associated Newspapers for privacy and copyright infringement.
“This is a victory not just for me, but for anyone who has ever felt scared to stand up for what’s right,” Meghan said in a statement after the judgment was delivered Thursday morning, People reported.
“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,” she continued.
However, the case might not be over. Attorneys for Associated Newspapers issued a statement disputing the decision, the Daily Beast reported. They also said the publishers are considering further legal action, including appealing the case to the Supreme Court in the United Kingdom.
“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,” the company said in a statement.
Meghan sued Associated Newspapers after it reproduced, in five articles published in February 2019, lengthy portions of a handwritten letter she had sent her father .
Earlier this year, a judge issued a summary judgement in Meghan’s favor, before the case could go to trial. Lord Justice Warby agreed that the tabloid had violated the duchess’ privacy. Based on the evidence thus far presented, he essentially said there was no prospect that Associated Newspapers could prevail at trial.
Associated Newspapers appealed this decision, saying the case at least deserved to be decided after a trial. The company also produced dramatic and potentially damaging new evidence to bolster its case for an appeal, in the form of a witness statement from former royal aide Jason Knauf, who worked as the communications secretary for Meghan and Harry when they were working members of the royal family.
Backed by previously unseen emails and text from the duchess, Knauf said that Meghan had cooperated with the authors of the book “Finding Freedom,” a flattering biography of her and Harry. Both Meghan and Harry long denied that she had cooperated with the authors, including in statements Meghan’s lawyers made to the court.
Confidential text messages Meghan sent to Knauf also showed that she worked with him on crafting the letter to her father, “with the understanding that it could be leaked,” she said. In the messages, Meghan talked about wanting to be careful with her word choices and also discussed addressing her father as “Daddy,” writing “In the unfortunate event that (the letter) leaked, it would pull at the heart strings.”
The lawyers for Associated Newspapers argued that such comments from Meghan undermined her claim that she always intended her letter to be private.
The introduction of Knauf’s evidence forced Meghan to apologize to the court and to admit that she had “forgotten” sending him the email, giving him specific information to share with the “Finding Freedom” authors.
U.K. legal experts previously told the Daily Beast that it appeared that Meghan “seriously misled the court” and to have potentially “told whoppers” as she pursued her claims against the Mail on Sunday.
But the court’s ruling Thursday, rejecting Associated Newspapers’ appeal, showed that the judges had little concern for Meghan’s admission she forgot about the email.
According to the Daily Beast, the residing judge, Sir Geoffrey Vos, said: “This was, at best, an unfortunate lapse of memory on her part, but (it) did not bear on the issues.”
Vos also said that the new evidence from Knauf, including how Meghan worked with royal aides to draft her letter to her father, was “of little assistance” to the matter at hand, the Daily Beast added.
Vos furthermore dismissed the publishers’ claims that they were only letting Thomas Markle tell his side of his dispute with Meghan by publishing portions of her letter to him. The publishers had argued that Meghan was responsible for her letter being made public when five of her friends gave an interview to People in February 2019 and mentioned the letter.
But Vos said that publishing the letter was “not a justified or proportionate means of correcting inaccuracies about the letter,” which were supposedly contained in the People article.
Vos also said that the Mail on Sunday’s articles were more focused on revealing the contents of the letter, rather than on providing Thomas Markle with a chance to respond to the comments about him in the People article.
