Duchess warned father about legal battle, court told
The Duchess of Sussex’s father has revealed that a letter she sent him ‘‘signalled the end’’ of their relationship rather than being a ‘‘message of peace’’, as she has claimed.
The chasm between father and daughter was further exposed yesterday as Meghan Markle’s privacy case returned to the High Court for a summary judgment hearing, as her legal team sought to avoid the spectre of a trial.
In a damning witness statement, Thomas Markle, 76, tore strips from his daughter’s version of events, insisting that he had been forced to speak out to defend himself from attack after his own side was misrepresented by her friends.
He said an article in United States magazine which he believed was authorised by the duchess, was ‘‘a total lie’’ that vilified him and portrayed him as a dishonest, exploitative and coldhearted father.
The ensuing decision to publish extracts of the letter in the
was his alone, Markle revealed, adding that he did not ask for or receive any money. He said he did not want the whole five-page missive published, as ‘‘the letter as a whole made Meg look terrible’’.
The duchess is suing Associated Newspapers, owner of the
for breach of privacy and copyright relating to the publication of five articles, three in MailOnline and two in the in February 2019. The company has argued that the duchess has made a string of inconsistent statements that could yet be found to be untruthful.
It also emerged in court yesterday that the duchess pleaded with her father to come clean over staged photographs or risk compromising the privacy of her future children.
Her lawyer, Justin Rushbrooke QC, revealed that in her letter, the duchess referred to a previous conversation with her father in which she told him that she was ‘‘ready to go into bat’’ with a legal complaint to stop the story being published.
The duchess, 39, also argued that publication of the ‘‘quintessentially’’ private letter she sent to her father was a ‘‘triplebarrelled’’ invasion of her rights, and that any argument to the contrary was ‘‘utterly fanciful’’.
She insisted that the letter was a ‘‘heartfelt plea from an anguished daughter’’, and was published only for commercial gain. She accused the newspaper of a ‘‘plain and serious’’ breach, not only of her right to respect for her correspondence, but also her private life, by reproducing extracts of the letter in a ‘‘sensational’’ context.
In court, Associated Newspapers argued that the case was ‘‘wholly unsuitable’’ for summary judgment because there was uncertainty on several matters.
It described the duchess’s account of the genesis of her letter as ‘‘confusing and tortuous’’, suggesting that even she was not clear what took place, and when or why.
Antony White QC, for the newspaper group, argued: ‘‘There is a very real question as to whether the claimant will be able to establish that she had a reasonable – or any – expectation of privacy.’’
White also referred to the involvement of the Kensington Palace communications team, saying ‘‘no truly private letter from daughter to father’’ would require such input.
If the duchess’s application fails, a full trial will go ahead in the autumn, with the duchess likely to face her own father across the courtroom.