In a statement, Meghan criticized the tabloids’ “harmful practices” as “a daily failure that divides us”.
“This is a victory not only for me, but for anyone who has ever been afraid to stand up for what is right,” she said.
Meghan called on people to be “collectively brave enough to reshape a tabloid industry that conditions people to be cruel and profit from the lies and the pain they create.”
Meghan accused the ANL of dragging out the trial and attempting to ‘distort the facts and manipulate the public (even during the appeal itself), making a simple case extraordinarily convoluted in order to generate more big headlines and sell more newspapers – a model that rewards chaos above the truth. . “
Meghan added: “As remote as it sounds from your personal life, it isn’t. Tomorrow it could be you. These harmful practices don’t happen once in a blue moon – they are a daily failure that divides us, and we all deserve better.
Meghan was suing ANL for privacy and copyright infringement after ANL posted many sections of a ‘deeply personal’ handwritten letter she sent to her ex-father Thomas Markle shortly after her marriage to Prince Harry.
Earlier this year, a senior judge, Lord Justice Warby, who is very experienced in media law, granted Meghan a so-called ‘summary judgment’.
This meant that he had unilaterally decided that there was absolutely no chance that ANL would succeed in his attempt to defend himself against Meghan’s action, and therefore ended the process in Meghan’s favor, without proceeding. to a full trial.
The ANL appealed the ruling, saying the case at least deserved to be tried in court.
However, their argument was strongly rejected by the Court of Appeals today, despite the LNA presenting dramatic new evidence: a witness statement from Meghan’s former communications chief Jason Knauf showing that Meghan had informed the authors of the book Find freedom, which she had long denied.
Meghan was forced to admit in court that she ‘forgot’ to send Knauf a lengthy email providing her with specific points of information for the perpetrators, Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand.
However, the chairman of the court, Sir Geoffrey Vos, master of the rolls, said: “It was, at best, an unfortunate oversight on his part, but it did not focus on the issues. “
Knauf also provided more damaging evidence against Meghan, including a series of messages from her, which indicated that she addressed the letter to ‘Papa’, specifically so that if her father disclosed it, it would ‘pull the chords “.
ANL said this new evidence showed Meghan wrote the letter in consultation with her press office, and in the hope that she would flee, and therefore should have had a different expectation of confidentiality than a another private letter.
However, Vos refuted this, saying the new evidence was “of little help” to the ongoing case.
ANL also claimed that Meghan herself had the letter made in the public domain when five of her friends gave an interview to People magazine in which they mentioned the letter, characterizing it, ANL said, incorrectly.
ANL said they were simply offering Thomas Markle a right to reply and correct the case.
The judge exploded this claim, saying the publication was “not a justified or proportionate means of correcting inaccuracies regarding the letter contained in an article published on February 6, 2019 in People magazine. The key point was that the Mail on Sunday articles focused on revealing the contents of the letter, rather than providing Mr. Markle’s response to the attack on him in People magazine. »
Vos added that the Mail headline: “Revealed: Letter Showing the True Tragedy of Meghan’s Break-up with a Father She Said ‘Broke Her Heart into a Million Pieces” “made it clear” that the Mail on Sunday articles were splashed as a new public revelation of excerpts from the Duchess’s letter to her father, rather than her father’s responses to what People magazine had written.
Meghan has denied allowing friends to speak People or that she had intended to divulge the letter, simply arguing that she understood she could and wanted to be prepared for the eventuality.
Vos concluded: “While it might have been proportionate to publish a very small part of the letter for this purpose, it was not necessary to publish half of the contents of the letter as Associated Newspapers had done. “
Meghan’s landslide victory today will draw a final line on the case and banish the humiliating prospect of her being cross-examined in open court.