Meghan hits back
Leave my friends alone
THE Duchess of Sussex has accused the The Mail on Sunday of “playing a media game with real lives” over its attempts to name five of her friends who gave a favourable interview about her to a US magazine.
The 38-year-old claims the newspaper wants to “expose them in the public domain for no reason other than clickbait and commercial gain”, alleging the action is “vicious and poses a threat to their emotional and mental well-being”.
Saying that each one of them was a “private citizen and young mother”, she accused the publisher of trying to “create a circus” of their lives.”
A spokesman for The Mail on Sunday said it had “absolutely no intention” of publishing the identities of the friends this weekend, but had informed the Duchess’s lawyers they wanted the question of their anonymity “properly considered by the court”.
“Their evidence is at the heart of the case and we see no reason why their identities should be kept secret,” they said.
It is understood that, should the friends give evidence as witnesses to the case, the newspaper would want to cross-examine them about whether the Duchess knew about their original interview and, if not, why they chose to speak without her knowledge or permission.
The Duchess, whose five friends painted a flattering portrait of her personality and lifestyle when they spoke to People magazine last year, has maintained she knew nothing of their cooperation until after the article was published.
Each has now been named in confidential parts of court papers, as the Duchess attempts to sue The Mail on Sunday for publishing excerpts of her handwritten letter to her father, which was first mentioned in the interview.
After its existence was made public in People magazine, 75-year-old Thomas Markle provided the letter to the newspaper, which published sections of it.
The case now concerns how far the letter could be considered “private”, with the disclosures from anonymous friends considered key.
The Duchess’s lawyers will today apply to block Associated Newspapers from naming the five anonymous friends, by filing an application in the High Court.
They argue any resulting publicity could “intimidate” them, and “dissuade them from agreeing to give evidence in support of the claimant’s case at trial”, giving the newspaper an “unfair advantage”.
In a witness statement submitted to the court, the Duchess said: “Associated Newspapers, the owner of the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, is threatening to publish the names of five women – five private citizens – who made a choice on their own to speak anonymously with a US media outlet more than a year ago, to defend me from the bullying behaviour of Britain’s tabloid media.
“These five women are not on trial, and nor am I.
“The publisher of The Mail on Sunday is the one on trial.
“It is this publisher that acted unlawfully and is attempting to evade accountability; to create a circus and distract from the point of this case – that The Mail on Sunday unlawfully published my private letter.
“Each of these women is a private citizen, young mother, and each has a basic right to privacy. Both The Mail on Sunday and the court system have their names on a confidential schedule, but for The Mail on Sunday to expose them in the public domain for no reason other than clickbait and commercial gain is vicious and poses a threat to their emotional and mental well-being.
“The Mail on Sunday is playing a media game with real lives.
“I respectfully ask the court to treat this legal matter with the sensitivity it deserves, and to prevent the publisher of The Mail on Sunday from breaking precedent and abusing the legal process by identifying these anonymous individuals − a privilege that these newspapers in fact rely upon to protect their own unnamed sources.”
The Duchess is suing for undisclosed damages for breaches of privacy, copyright and data protection.
Although the Duchess now lives in Los Angeles with Harry, the Duke of Sussex, the witness statement lists Frogmore Cottage, Windsor, as her address and confirms that she understands “proceedings for contempt of court may be brought” if it is false.
In paperwork filed by Schillings, the Duchess’s lawyers, her team spells out that the Duchess’s confidantes − referred to as “the Five Friends” throughout − all have “small children who would be deeply affected by the unwanted presence of reporters/photographers at their homes and in public, and the effect this would have on their parents”.
Saying the media interest in the case is “huge”, they claim it has “already had a significant impact on the private life of one of the Five Friends” and prompted a “guessing game” as to their identities.
A spokesman for The Mail on Sunday said: “To set the record straight, The Mail on Sunday had absolutely no intention of publishing the identities of the five friends this weekend.
“But their evidence is at the heart of the case and we see no reason why their identities should be kept secret.
“That is why we told the Duchess’s lawyers last week that the question of their confidentiality should be properly considered by the court.”
Earlier this year, the Duchess lost the first strikeout hearing, in which Mr Justice Warby ruled her lawyers would not be allowed to argue in court that the newspaper acted dishonestly, “stirred up” issues with her father, and had an “agenda” against her.
Associated Newspapers has wholly denied all claims against the group, particularly the suggestion that the letter was edited in any meaningful way.