Sussexes’ former aide voices ‘regret’ at year-long silence as he submits evidence

Press secretary provides statement to court as final arguments heard in appeal over publication of letter

THE Duchess of Sussex’s most trusted aide came forward to give evidence in a Court of Appeal case following a oneyear campaign to persuade him, after he “regretted” failing to speak out sooner, the court has heard.

Jason Knauf, the Sussexes’ former communications secretary, provided a statement to the court detailing emails and text exchanges which showed the Duchess had authorised collaboration with the authors of her biography.

They revealed her telling him that “obviously everything I’ve drafted is with the understanding that it could be leaked”, and sharing her view that if her father, Thomas Markle, took the decision to share it, “at least the world will know the truth”.

The emails provided by Mr Knauf led the Duchess to apologise to the Court of Appeal for failing to remember an exchange in which she gave written authorisation for him to brief the authors of Finding Freedom.

They have been the key part of The Mail on Sunday’s campaign to overturn a summary judgment that it unlawfully breached the Duchess’s privacy, copyright and data protection by publishing extracts from the letter to Mr Markle.

The Court of Appeal is currently hearing arguments that the case should instead go to trial. The Mail on Sunday argues that Mr Knauf ’s new evidence should be admitted.

A witness statement from the paper’s lawyer, Keith Mathieson, has now revealed that Mr Knauf resisted having any part in the legal proceedings for a year, before “regretting” his decision.

Saying he first approached Mr Knauf in September 2020, and tried again without success on numerous occasions, it was not until July 2021 that he provided a written statement, insisting it was from a “position of neutrality” and covering only the relevant facts.

Mr Mathieson said that he had approached Mr Knauf again in July, having “received information from a confidential source to the effect that Mr Knauf now regretted not providing a witness statement to us”.

“It did indeed turn out that, since the summary judgment had deprived Mr Knauf of the opportunity to provide evidence at a trial, he now wished to provide a witness statement to the parties so that his evidence could be considered as part of the appeal,” he said.

He went on to explain that it had been impossible to convince Mr Knauf, through his lawyers, to provide testimony before then.

At the time, it was considered likely that Mr Knauf and his former colleagues, including other press secretaries and a private secretary who had worked for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex at the relevant time, would be called to give evidence at trial.

Instead, the Duchess successfully applied for a summary judgment and, in February 2021, Lord Justice Warby ruled that The Mail on Sunday was unlawful in its actions.

The decision meant that no arguments were heard at full trial, and no witnesses were heard in the High Court.

A month later, a bullying complaint made against the Duchess, filed by Mr Knauf during his time at Kensington Palace and concerning two different members of staff, came to light. In a statement dated Sept 21 2021, Mr Knauf said: “I consider it the right thing to do to set out information that I am advised may be relevant to the court’s considerations.”

He added: “I have adopted a position of neutrality throughout, offering to provide information that I am advised is relevant to both parties.

“This has been a difficult and timeconsuming process that I have not sought a role in.”

The Duchess described Mr Knauf as a trusted adviser, and used elements from their email and text exchanges in her own witness statement.

The Court of Appeal yesterday heard closing arguments in the appeal, as the Duchess’s legal team reiterated her right to privacy and copyright over the handwritten letter.

Andrew Caldecott QC, representing Associated Newspapers, The Mail on Sunday’s publisher, argued there was a public interest in correcting “nasty and untrue” allegations about Mr Markle in a

People magazine article, which it claims put a “wholly misleading gloss” on the contents of the letter. Justin Rushbrooke QC, on behalf of the Duchess, argued that the new texts and emails did not change the case, showing that his client considered the letter confidential and did not provide any details on it to the authors of

Finding Freedom.

The judges last night said they would give their decision in writing at a later date.