Four former advisers to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex may have evidence that may ‘shed some light’ on Meghan’s letter to her distant father, the Supreme Court was informed today.
Meghan, 39, is suing Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), editors of Mail On Sunday and MailOnline, for breach of privacy for publishing excerpts from a letter she sent to her father, Thomas Markle, 76, after her royal wedding in 2018 .
His lawyers have requested summary judgment, a legal measure that would see parts of the case resolved without trial and without the need for witnesses, but the newspaper argues that the case is ‘totally unsuitable for summary judgment’.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex leave the Commonwealth Service at Westminster Abbey in London on 9 March last year, on their last royal engagement before leaving real life
Meghan is suing Associated Newspapers Limited for breach of privacy for publishing excerpts from a letter she sent to her father, Thomas Markle (photo) after her royal wedding in 2018
On the second day of today’s hearing, the lawyer for publishing house Antony White QC told the court that a letter of lawyers representing the so-called ‘Palace Four’ said that they would be able to ‘shed some light’ on the writing of Meghan’s letter to the Her father.
He told the court it was also “likely” that there was more evidence as to whether Meghan “directly or indirectly provided private information” to the authors of an unauthorized biography of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Finding Freedom.
The letter was sent to the parties on behalf of Jason Knauf – former secretary of communications for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who the newspaper claims was involved in drafting Meghan’s letter – and Christian Jones, his former deputy communications secretary.
The other two members of the so-called ‘Palace Four’ are Samantha Cohen, former Sussex private secretary, and Sara Latham, their former director of communications.
The letter was sent to the parties on behalf of Jason Knauf (left) – former Sussex communications secretary, whom the newspaper claims was involved in writing Meghan’s letter – and Christian Jones (right), his former secretary deputy communications
In the letter sent on his behalf, his lawyers state: ‘None of our clients appreciate their potential involvement in this litigation, which arose purely as a result of performing their duties in their respective positions at the relevant time.
“This is particularly the case, given the sensitivity and, therefore, the discretion required in their specific roles at Casa Real.”
He added: ‘None of our customers wish to take sides in the dispute between their respective customers. Our customers are strictly neutral.
“They have no interest in helping either party in the process. Their only interest is to ensure a level playing field with regard to any evidence they may present.
The other two members of the so-called ‘Palace Four’ are Samantha Cohen (left), former Sussex private secretary, and Sara Latham (right), their former director of communications
The letter continued that the ‘preliminary view of its lawyers is that one or more of our clients would be in a position to shed some light’ on three main areas it lists as:
- the creation of the Charter and the Electronic Draft.
- whether or not the claimant foresaw that the Charter could fall into the public domain.
- whether or not the claimant provided private information directly or indirectly (generally and in relation to the Letter specifically) to the authors of Finding Freedom.
Mr White said the letter shows that ‘more oral and documentary evidence is likely to be available at the trial, which will shed light on certain key factual issues in this case.’
The court was told that another area requiring ‘factual investigation at the trial’ is how the biography Royal Finding Freedom, which tells the story of Meghan’s life and marriage to the Duke of Sussex, was written.
The newspaper claims that she cooperated with its authors, Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand, or authorized her friends to share details of the letter.
Sketch by Ian Mill QC court artist (top left), Justin Rushbrooke QC (top right) and judge Mr. Justice Warby (bottom), at the Royal Courts of Justice in London yesterday
Meghan denied the charges – as did Scobie – but she admitted in a court document presented at a hearing last year that she authorized a friend to speak on his behalf.
Mr White said: ‘What did the Plaintiff say to this unidentified person could be communicated to the authors about the letter, in order to counter what she describes as her father’s media narrative?
“This is another matter that requires factual investigation at the trial.”
The court was also informed of a February 2019 article in People magazine, which revealed the letter for the first time and contained interviews with five Meghan friends whose identities were not revealed.
If a full trial occurs, everyone is expected to give evidence and be questioned under oath about the source of the article.
Mr White said to Mr Justice Warby: ‘The letter was sent by the Applicant (Meghan) in order to be read by a third party or the public.’
The newspaper claims that Meghan cooperated with the authors of Finding Freedom, Omid Scobie (above) and Carolyn Durand, or authorized her friends to share details of the letter
He added: ‘The writing of the letter to be used as part of a media strategy, the extent to which it made or allowed information about it to be passed on to the authors (from Finding Freedom) and People magazine, cannot be left to side and requires thorough investigation at trial. ‘
On the first day of the hearing, Justin Rushbrooke, QC, representing Meghan, told Mr. Justice Warby that the newspaper’s case had no prospect of success and that the publication of the extracts had been a ‘three-pipe invasion of her privacy rights’ .
He described the letter as “a sincere plea from a distressed daughter to her father” and that she had no intention of making it public.
Mr Rushbrooke added: ‘It is the best example that could be found of a letter that any person of ordinary sensibility would not like to be disclosed to third parties, much less in a mass media publication, in a sensational context and to serve the commercial purposes of the newspaper. ‘