UK court backs Meghan in privacy dispute with publisher – .

Meghan gives surprise interview to Ellen DeGeneres – .

LONDON – The Duchess of Sussex on Thursday won the latest leg in her long-running privacy lawsuit against a newspaper editor for publishing parts of a letter she wrote to her ex-father .

The London Court of Appeal upheld a High Court ruling in February that the publication of the letter former Meghan Markle wrote to her father Thomas Markle after her marriage to Prince Harry in 2018 was illegal and carried invasion of his privacy.

The publisher of the Mail on Sunday and the MailOnline site challenged the ruling in the Court of Appeal, which held a hearing last month. Dismissing the appeal, Senior Judge Geoffrey Vos told the court on Thursday in a brief hearing that “the Duchess had a reasonable expectation of confidentiality in the contents of the letter. This content was personal, private and not of legitimate public interest ”.

In a statement, Meghan, 40, said the decision was “a victory not just for me, but for anyone who has ever been afraid to stand up for what is right”.

“While this victory sets a precedent, 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 the pain they create. She said.

Associated Newspapers took issue with Meghan’s claim that she did not intend the letter to be seen by anyone other than her father. They said correspondence between Meghan and her then communications secretary Jason Knauf showed the Duchess suspected her father might leak the letter to reporters and wrote it with that in mind.

The editor also argued that the publication of the letter was part of Thomas Markle’s right of reply following an interview with People magazine with five of Meghan’s friends, saying he was “sorely cold in his shoulders Her daughter as her royal wedding approaches.

But Vos said the article, which the Mail on Sunday described as “sensational”, was “presented as yet another public disclosure” rather than focusing on Thomas Markle’s response to negative media reports about him. .

In their appeal, Associated Newspapers also argued that Meghan had made private information public by cooperating with Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand, authors of “Finding Freedom”, a sympathetic book about her and Harry.

Lawyers for the Duchess had previously denied that she or Harry collaborated with the perpetrators. But Knauf told the court he gave the writers information and discussed it with Harry and Meghan.

Knauf’s testimony, which was previously undisclosed, was a dramatic turn in the long-running case.

In response, Meghan apologized for misleading the court about the extent of her cooperation with the authors of the book.

The Duchess said she did not recall the discussions with Knauf when she testified earlier in the case, “and I apologize to the court for the fact that I did not recall those exchanges at the ‘era “.

“I had absolutely no desire or intention to mislead the accused or the court,” she said.

Meghan, a former star of the American television legal drama “Suits”, married Harry, grandson of Queen Elizabeth II, at Windsor Castle in May 2018.

Meghan and Harry announced in early 2020 that they were stepping down from royal duties and moving to North America, citing what they said were the unbearable intrusions and racist attitudes of the British media. They settled in Santa Barbara, California with their two young children.

In her statement on Thursday, Meghan strongly condemned Associated Newspapers for treating the trial as “a game without rules”. She said she had been the subject of “deception, intimidation and calculated attacks” in the three years since the start of the trial.

“The longer they hung around, the more they could distort the facts and manipulate the audience (even during the call itself), making a simple case extraordinarily convoluted in order to generate more headlines and sell more newspapers – a model that rewards.” chaos above truth, ”she said.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here