Meghan awaits ruling on naming friends who talked to magazine
THE DUCHESS of Sussex is awaiting a High Court ruling on a bid to keep secret the identities of five friends who gave an anonymous interview to a US magazine in her legal action against a British newspaper.
In her case against the publisher of the Mail on Sunday and MailOnline, Meghan’s lawyers have applied for the five quoted in People magazine to remain anonymous.
The Duchess is suing Associated Newspapers Limited over an article which reproduced parts of a handwritten letter sent by her to Thomas Markle, 76, in 2018.
In an article published by People, the friends spoke out against the bullying Meghan said she has faced, and have only been identified in confidential court documents.
The Duchess, 38, says her friends gave the interview without her knowledge, and denies a claim made by ANL that she “caused or permitted” the People article to be published.
Her legal team attended the High Court in London yesterday for a preliminary hearing before Mr Justice Warby, in a bid to keep the identities of the friends secret.
Lawyers for ANL are resisting the application, claiming the friends brought the letter sent by her father into the public domain when it was referred to for the first time in the People interview.
Meghan’s lawyers argued that the friends have a right to anonymity both as confidential journalistic sources and under their own privacy rights.
Justin Rushbrooke QC, representing the Duchess, said: “To force the claimant, as the defendant urges this court to do, to disclose their identities to the public at this stage would be to exact an unacceptably high price for pursuing her claim for invasion of privacy against the defendant in respect of its disclosure of the letter.
“On her case, which will be tried in due course, the defendant has been guilty of a flagrant and unjustified intrusion into her private and family life.
“Given the close factual nexus between the letter and the events leading up to the defendant’s decision to publish its contents, it
Antony White QC, addressing the High Court in London. would be a cruel irony were she required to pay that price before her claim has even been determined.”
Mr Rushbrooke said that the publisher had made the interviews relevant to the case and had “forced” the Duchess to identify the names of the five friends in a court document. Meghan’s lawyers also argue that ANL has “already demonstrated a willingness to publish articles” based on the contents of court documents.
Mr Rushbrooke added: “There can be little doubt that, in addition to defending this case through the courts, the defendant is seeking to maximise the publicity surrounding this case, which it has repeatedly dubbed ‘the trial of the century’.”
He added that one of the five had provided a witness statement to the court in support of the application. Mr Rushbrooke told the court she was the best person to provide evidence as “she is the one who actually orchestrated the interviews”.
Antony White QC, for ANL, said the friends are “important potential witnesses on a key issue”, adding: “Reporting these matters without referring to names would be a heavy curtailment of the media’s and the defendant’s entitlement to report this case and the public’s right to know about it”.
They are important potential witnesses on a key issue.