This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/apr/24/meghan-and-harry-listen-in-as-case-against-mail-on-sunday-starts

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Meghan and Harry listen in as case against Mail on Sunday starts Mail publisher asks court to strike out Meghan's 'dishonesty' claims
(about 2 hours later)
Duchess of Sussex suing British publisher about use of letter to her father, Thomas Markle Duchess sues publisher of British newspapers over use of letter to father Thomas Markle
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are expected to listen in to a virtual high court hearing in the first stage of Meghan’s legal action against a British newspaper over its publication of a “private and confidential” letter to her estranged father. Claims by the Duchess of Sussex that a newspaper had “harassed, humiliated, manipulated and exploited” her estranged father to “dig or stir up” a dispute between the pair were “remarkable”, given that she had not contacted him to ask if he agreed, the high court has heard.
It is understood that Harry and Meghan will listen to the part of the hearing conducted by her lawyers. Meghan is suing Associated Newspapers for misuse of private information, breach of data protection, and copyright infringement after the Mail on Sunday and Mail Online published the contents of a handwritten “private and confidential” letter sent to Thomas Markle, 75, in August 2018.
The preliminary hearing, in front of Mr Justice Warby, has begun with Antony White QC, for Associated Newspapers, making submissions on behalf of the publisher. Associated Newspapers denies the claims.
Meghan is suing the publisher of the Mail On Sunday and MailOnline over an article that reproduced parts of a handwritten letter she sent to Thomas Markle in August 2018. As the first round in her privacy claim was heard remotely before a virtual court hearing in London, she and Prince Harry were expected to be listening in from Los Angeles.
Sections of the letter were published in the newspaper and online in February last year, and it was announced in October that the duchess would be taking legal action. Meghan is suing over five articles – two in the Mail on Sunday, and three on Mail Online – which reproduced parts of the letters, with the headline on one reading: “Revealed: The letter showing the true tragedy of Meghan’s rift with a father she says has ‘broken her heart into a million pieces’.”
The headline on the article read: “Revealed: The letter showing true tragedy of Meghan’s rift with a father she says has ‘broken her heart into a million pieces’.” At a preliminary hearing before Mr Justice Warby, lawyers for Associated Newspapers argued that parts of the duchess’s claim should be struck out, including that it had “acted dishonestly ” in cutting out words and sentences from the letter in order to paint a misleading picture of the relationship between father and daughter.
The duchess is seeking damages from Associated Newspapers for alleged misuse of private information, copyright infringement and breach of the Data Protection Act. Allegations of “dishonesty and malicious intent” were not relevant in a misuse of private information case, Antony White QC said. “They are not relevant, they are not properly pleaded and should be pruned from the claimant’s case.” It was just “bald assertion” that would require a “complex test of the state of mind of the publisher”, which was neither proportionate or appropriate, he said.
Associated Newspapers wholly denies the allegations - particularly the claim that the letter was edited in any way that changed its meaning - and says it will hotly contest the case. Claims the newspaper had “harassed, humiliated, manipulated and exploited” her father was a “remarkable position”, White added. “In this context it appears that the claimant has seen fit to put these allegations on the record without having spoken to Mr Markle, verifying these allegations with him, or obtaining his consent,” he said. As she had said that she has had no contact with him since the wedding, it was “highly unlikely” she had any credible basis for the claim, he said.
At a preliminary hearing on Friday, which is being conducted remotely, White is asking for parts of the duchess’s case to be struck out ahead of a potential full trial on the issues. Associated Newspapers is also seeking to strike out references to nine other articles, alleged by the duchess to demonstrate an agenda against her and part of her plea for aggravated damages. White said they were written by 14 different journalists, and were all said by Meghan “to be false”. He added these others articles were not sued on, and not written by the same journalist as the article sued on.
The publisher’s legal team are arguing that allegations of “dishonesty and malicious intent” made against it by the duchess should not form part of her case. David Sherborne QC, for the duchess, said the Mail on Sunday had “cherry-picked” bits from the letter, sometimes omitting words and sentences from paragraphs. Around half the letter had been omitted because “it didn’t fit the narrative”, he said. The legal argument for striking out claims of dishonesty was “an artificial exercise”, he said. The newspaper was not trying to strike out claims that it had been “misleading”, he added.
White told Warby that, in a reply to the publisher’s defence, lawyers for Meghan had made “further assertions of improper, deliberate conduct”. The letter, was “obviously private correspondence”, and contained Meghan’s “deepest and most private thoughts” about her relationship with her father at a time of great personal anguish and distress after he was unable to walk her down the aisle at her May 2018 wedding, the judge heard.
In the reply document, Associated Newspapers is accused of “harassing, humiliating, manipulating and exploiting” Thomas Markle, who is described as “vulnerable”, White said. Court documents showed that Associated Newspapers wrote to Meghan’s lawyers on 6 April, stating that Friday’s hearing should be avoided if possible because of the Covid-19 pandemic, and offering not to seek costs if the disputed parts of her claim were withdrawn. However, it is claimed, her legal team replied saying she “considered it was unreasonable to accept the offer”.
The barrister said those allegations relating to Markle “appear to have been put on to the record without the claimant [Meghan] having contacted her father to see if he agrees with them”. No date has yet been set for the main trial. Her lawyers will argue that, contrary to the impression given in a series of articles, Meghan and Harry had repeatedly telephoned and messaged her father in the lead up to to the wedding, but he had refused to answer their calls.
The legal action was announced last year in a highly personal statement, in which the Duke of Sussex accused some newspapers of a “ruthless campaign” against his wife. Associated Newspapers will argue that the duchess had an expectation that the letter might be put in the public domain. An article in People Magazine had quoted one of her friends making reference to it, it will argue. The duchess has denied she knew her friend would speak about it, or that she had sanctioned any such interview for the magazine.
Referencing his mother Diana, Princess of Wales, who was a tabloid newspaper staple and died in a Paris car crash while being pursued by paparazzi in 1997, Harry said: “Though this action may not be the safe one, it is the right one. The case continues.
“Because my deepest fear is history repeating itself. I’ve seen what happens when someone I love is commoditised to the point that they are no longer treated or seen as a real person.
“I lost my mother and now I watch my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces.”
In the statement, Harry said of his wife: “I have been a silent witness to her private suffering for too long. To stand back and do nothing would be contrary to everything we believe in.”
Markle, 75, has claimed he felt pressured to share the letter after its contents were misrepresented in a magazine article.
In an interview with the Mail On Sunday, he said: “I have to defend myself. I only released parts of the letter because other parts were so painful. The letter didn’t seem loving to me. I found it hurtful.”