Duchess’s letter ‘not for father’s eyes only’

Mail on Sunday to rely on aide’s evidence she wrote ‘with public in mind’ in appeal over privacy ruling

‘The letter was crafted... with publication in mind because the claimant appreciated Mr Markle might disclose it to the media’

‘To permit the defence to go to trial would only have facilitated further invasions of [the Duchess’s] privacy’

A FORMER senior aide to the Duchess of Sussex has provided new evidence that shows a letter she wrote to her estranged father was “written with public consumption in mind as a possibility”, the Court of Appeal has heard.

The Mail on Sunday, which is appealing against a High Court decision that it unlawfully published details from the letter, said that Jason Knauf, the Duchess’s former communications secretary, had provided a witness statement that it would “rely on” in its arguments.

The statement would show the Duchess “considered it at least a serious possibility that the letter would be made public by her father and crafted the letter with that possibility specifically in mind”, the newspaper’s publisher said.

Lord Justice Warby, a High Court judge, ruled the publication of the letter to Thomas Markle was “unlawful” in February, handing down a summary judgment avoiding a high-profile trial.

Yesterday, the Court of Appeal heard arguments from Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) that the case, which centres on privacy, copyright and data protection, should proceed to trial.

Andrew Caldecott QC, representing the publisher, said Mr Knauf ’s evidence would cast doubt on the basis of the ruling. “We read the judgment as implicitly accepting that the letter was crafted as an intimate communication for her father’s eyes only,” he told the court.

“The fundamental point turns out to be false on the new evidence. The letter was crafted specifically with the potential of public consumption in mind because the claimant appreciated Mr Markle might disclose it to the media.”

Applying to use new evidence in its arguments, the newspaper’s lawyers said: “Jason Knauf has provided a witness statement which is material to these issues and the wider appeal.”

The Duchess sued ANL over the publication of parts of a five-page letter she sent to her father in August 2018 during a period of estrangement after he colluded with paparazzi and did not go to her wedding for health reasons.

In the letter, sent three months after the Sussexes’ wedding, the Duchess accused her father of breaking her heart “into a million pieces”. Its existence came to light six months later in People magazine, in an interview with five anonymous friends of the Duchess.

Mr Knauf was communications secretary to the Cambridges and Sussexes when the letter was sent, and now works as chief executive for the Cambridges’ Royal Foundation. He is described as a “trusted adviser” who had “spoken to Mr Markle repeatedly and supported the Duchess by trying to protect her father from media intrusion”.

He was also involved in an internal palace complaint against the Duchess, in which he raised concerns about her bullying members of staff. She denies the allegations.

The Mail on Sunday told the court that Mr Knauf’s statement also supported its “general case that the [Duchess] co-operated” with the authors of her biography, Finding Freedom. Mr Caldecott said the ANL’S defence to the Duchess’s privacy claim was arguable and should have gone to a trial.

Her legal team oppose the appeal and inclusion of new evidence, arguing that the judge reached the right conclusion.

The Duchess, 40, has prepared a new 23-page statement of her own, described as a “deluge” of material by a Court of Appeal judge.

Yesterday, the court heard arguments about the People article, saying it made a “number of serious defamatory allegations” about Mr Markle, 77, that he could defend himself from “only by disclosing the text of the letter”.

Describing claims in the article that Mr Markle would not take his daughter’s calls and “never texted” before the wedding as a “serious allegation”, Mr Caldecott said the article fortified “the impression he had heartlessly ignored his daughter at this most important time”. In fact, he said, it was contradicted by pre-wedding texts telling her he was unable to fly and was sorry.

“It’s all so close now and I can’t wait to walk you down the aisle,” Mr Markle told his daughter in the lead-up to the wedding, later messaging to say he was safe in an American hospital and would have to stay there. After heart surgery, he said: “The doctor will not allow me to fly so of course I can’t come. Love you and wish you the best of everything.”

He later added: “Who will be giving you away? If you really need me, I will come. I’m sorry about all of this.”

Saying the relevant messages were absent from Lord Justice Warby’s summary, ANL said the judgment was “onesided when all the texts are considered”.

The Duchess’s lawyers argue the claim by ANL that she had no reasonable expectation of privacy was “not just unrealistic, but cynical”, adding: “To permit the defence to go to trial would only have facilitated further invasions of [the Duchess’s] privacy, all flowing from its publication of a private and deeply personal letter, whilst giving [ANL] the opportunity to profit handsomely from the media circus that would inevitably result.”

The publisher’s appeal is being heard over three days.