Biographer: Duchess did not help with book
Biographer says he did not interview Duchess as her lawyers attack newspaper’s ‘conspiracy theory’
The Duchess of Sussex’s biographer told the High Court that she did not authorise details in his book, Finding
Freedom. Omid Scobie gave evidence in the form of a witness statement in her £3 million High Court privacy battle against The Mail on Sunday, as she was accused of using a letter to her estranged father as “part of a media strategy”. It came as she was ordered to disclose “thousands” of messages sent to friends and family after the article was published.
THE Duchess of Sussex’s biographer has given evidence in her £3million High Court privacy battle, as she was accused of using a letter to her estranged father as “part of a media strategy”.
Omid Scobie, a co-author of Finding Freedom, submitted a witness statement as part of her legal case against The Mail on Sunday, insisting she did not authorise details in the book.
The Duchess is suing Associated Newspapers, the owner of The Mail on Sunday, over the publication of a letter she wrote to her father, claiming it breached her privacy, copyright and data protection rights. But lawyers on behalf of the newspaper allege that she breached her own privacy because she “permitted” details about her life to be provided to the authors, including “information about the letter”.
The claims of the Duchess’s involvement in the book came as she was ordered to disclose “thousands” of messages sent to friends and family after the article was published. Lawyers for the newspaper requested emails, photos, Facetime logs and Whatsapp messages be handed over to “shed light upon the claimant’s attitude to the letter and her privacy”.
The Duchess’s legal team had tried to limit the time period in which the messages could be retrieved but, in another blow to her ongoing legal proceedings, Master Francesca Kaye ruled that all relevant messages should be submitted over a six-month period from Feb 10 2019 – the date on which the disputed article was published.
In yesterday’s hearing, the newspaper applied to amend its defence in light of the publication of Finding Freedom. The biography, which was published in August, details the Sussexes’ departure from the Royal family. Lawyers argue it was written with the couple’s “extensive cooperation”. Antony White QC, representing the newspaper, said the book’s author, Mr Scobie, made “public statements”, televised on Good Morning America in 2018, which proved Meghan had expected the letter to be leaked to the press. The newspaper argues that Mr Scobie made the statements because he was given information about the letter, therefore undermining the Duchess’s claim of a privacy breach by the paper.
But, in a witness statement lodged before the court, Mr
Scobie said that any suggestion he spoke to the couple about the book’s contents prior to its release is “false”. He added: “They did not authorise the book and have never been interviewed for it.” If the case goes to a full trial – which is expected in January next year if the parties cannot reach an out-ofcourt settlement – then the newspaper’s lawyers said they will seek to “test” Mr Scobie’s evidence in crossexamination.
Setting out the newspaper’s application for an amended defence, lawyers on behalf of The Mail on Sunday argued that the Duchess wrote the letter to her father “as part of a media strategy”.
“[Meghan] has allowed information about her private and family life, including her relationship and communications with her father and the letter, to enter the public domain by means of the book,” legal documents read.
The newspaper alleged that the Duchess used her friends as “de facto PR agents” to produce “flattering” media coverage, including giving an interview to People magazine.
Lawyers on behalf of the newspaper argued that the book contains “intensely personal” information that only Meghan would know about, promoting questions on how the details appeared in the book without her collaboration.
The Duchess’s legal team strenuously denied the allegation that she collaborated on the book, describing the argument as “false”, “fantastical” and “a conspiracy theory”.
The court also heard that the total legal costs of the case are estimated to be around £3million – £1.8million for the Duchess and £1.2million for the defendant.
Master Kaye, who criticised the costs for both parties, saying they were “excessive” and “disproportionate”, reserved her judgment on the newspaper’s application to amend its defence and will hand it down on a later date.