Meghan Markle’s credibility questioned, previous claims have been proven ‘false’ by court
- Replies 23
Meghan Markle previously claimed that the letter she sent to her father Thomas Markle was private and for ‘her father’s eyes only’. However, the Court of Appeal found that texts she sent to a royal aide revealed the Duchess of Sussex wrote the letter with ‘public consumption in mind’.
It was alleged that the former Suits star’s denials of cooperating with the authors of Finding Freedom were contradicted by evidence from her former communications chief, Jason Knauf.
Meghan said after her initial win that the paper had been 'held to account for their illegal and dehumanising practices'. Photo by Caitlin Ochs/Reuters via ABC News.
She claimed the five articles published in February 2019, both online and in print, accessed her private information, trespassed her copyright and breached the Data Protection Act.
The Duchess of Sussex won her case earlier this year. Lord Justice Warby ruled that ANL's publication of Meghan's letter to her father was 'manifestly excessive and hence unlawful' because it was a 'personal and private letter'.
On Sunday, ANL began its challenge of a High Court judgment that found that their decision to publish extracts of Meghan's 2018 letter was 'unlawful'.
The publishing company told the Court of Appeal in London that new evidence shows the privacy case had been based on a 'false' premise.
Andrew Caldecott QC, for ANL, presented the judges with the new evidence from Mr Knauf in the form of texts. These raised questions about Meghan's 'credibility'.
Mr Caldecott QC argued the letter sent to Mr Markle “was written with public consumption in mind as a possibility”.
“Far from being 'an intimate communication for her father's eyes only', Meghan wrote the letter knowing Thomas Markle 'might disclose it to the media'”, he said.
“The fundamental point turns out to be false based on the new evidence. The letter was crafted specifically with the potential of public consumption in mind.”
Mr Caldecott QC also stated that ANL's defence to Meghan's privacy claim deserved a trial.
The Court of Appeal was told that Meghan's claim was “diminished and outweighed” by her father's right to reply following “false or misleading'” allegations published in People magazine in the US.
“The claimant's letter and the People article both make allegations against Mr Markle of cruelly cold-shouldering the claimant in the pre-wedding period. The article, or its gist, was reported worldwide,” the barrister said.
“We say there was a difference between what Mr Markle said and what he was presented as saying.”
“The defendant submits it has a strongly arguable case that by the time of the publication of the articles, the claimant no longer had a reasonable expectation of privacy of the text of the letter,” concluded Mr Caldecott.
ANL had also stated that new evidence from Ms Markle's former royal communications chief Jason Knauf 'contradicts' the pleadings before the judge when he ruled in her favour earlier this year.
It was alleged that Meghan co-operated with the authors of Finding Freedom, which she previously denied in the High Court case.
“At or about the same time as the People article appeared, the claimant co-operated with the authors of a book, later entitled Finding Freedom, through her communications secretary Jason Knauf in Autumn and Winter 2018,” said Mr Caldecott.
“The claimant has expressly denied any such cooperation with one minor concession which we say is now contradicted by the evidence of Mr Knauf.”
“The book was not published until August 2020, long after the articles she complained about, but it substantially reproduces the claimant's case about her father's bad behaviour prior to the wedding,” he continued.
“Against this background, the defendant [ANL] submits it has a strongly argued case that by the time of the publication of the articles, the claimant no longer had a reasonable expectation of privacy, given it was written with public consumption in mind at least as a possibility. Or if it [didn't, it was] diminished and outweighed by Mr Markle's right of reply, the need for correction and wider public interest – those three concepts all being distinct and all engaged.”
“Lastly, the claimant's pleaded case can be shown to be materially false by contemporaneous documents. Subject to one limited admission, the claimant denied any co-operation with the authors of the book (Finding Freedom). She also denied that she even suspected that Mr Markle would leak the letter and therefore was written as an entirely private document,” defended ANL.
“We say this raises questions about her credibility.”
.png){kind=icon}
