Judge criticises ‘tit-for-tat’ Meghan battle
Newspaper group and Duchess both under fire as she wins battle to keep her friends’ identities secret
THE Duchess of Sussex and a British newspaper have been criticised by a High Court judge for waging “tit-fortat” publicity campaigns, as she secured a ruling keeping her friends’ identities secret.
Mr Justice Warby told the High Court in London how both camps in the Duchess’s legal battle with Associated Newspapers had created a “frenzy of publicity” and a “febrile atmosphere” capable of undermining fairness and transparency.
The Duchess, 39, is suing Associated Newspapers, owners of the Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail and Mailonline for publication of a story featuring extracts of a “private and confidential” letter she sent her father, Thomas Markle, in 2018.
She is claiming damages because her lawyers say the article from February last year is a breach of privacy and copyright. Days later, her five “close friends” gave anonymous interviews to People magazine in America, in what was seen as an account siding with her. The newspaper group had fought for the names to be made public.
The judge said in a 20-page ruling that “for the time being, at least” the five friends should have their identities protected “in the interests of the administration of justice”.
He stressed that while their anonymity remained “at this stage” in place, that “may fade or even evaporate if and when there is a trial at which one or more of the sources gives evidence”.
Welcoming the ruling, a spokesman for the Duchess said: “The Duchess felt it was necessary to take this step to try and protect her friends – as any of us would – and we’re glad this was clear. We are happy the judge has agreed to protect these five individuals.”
However, in the judge’s ruling he said it was “clear that neither side has, so far, been willing to confine the presentation of its case to the courtroom”.
He said: “Both sides have demonstrated an eagerness to play out the merits of their dispute in public, outside the courtroom, and primarily in media reports.
This approach to litigation has little to do with enabling public scrutiny of the legal process, or enhancing the due administration of justice. Indeed, in some respects it tends to impede both fairness and transparency.”
The ruling catalogued examples of how stories from either side had appeared in newspapers, magazines and on social media, leading to “tit-for-tat criticisms” of one another for publicising details and even legal documents not yet submitted to the court.
“Each side has overstated its case about the conduct of the other,” he said.
The judge said there was evidence to support the newspaper’s claims that the Duchess’s team had been “energetically briefing the media about these proceedings from the outset.” He noted how the title page of the Duchess’s witness statement was posted on a Twitter account belonging to Omid Scobie, one of the authors of the biography Finding Freedom: Harry and Meghan and the Making of a Modern Family. Meanwhile, the ruling suggested that in July this year, a lawyer acting for Associated Newspapers “immediately” forwarded an email received from the Duchess’s lawyers to the newspaper.
That document included details of the names of the five women – the Duchess’s “inner circle” – as well as the suggestion that the taxpayers’ contribution to crowd security when Prince Harry married the American actress in 2018 “was far outweighed by the tourism revenue of one billion pounds sterling generated from the royal wedding”.
The next day, Mailonline reported how the Duchess of Sussex had identified “five close friends” who gave an interview to People magazine.
Later that day, it ran a “lengthy story” with the headline: ‘Meghan Markle claims Britain made a profit out of her £32 million wedding to Prince Harry because it made £1BILLION in tourism windfall.”
If the legal battle does go to trial, it is expected to take place early next year.
‘The Duchess felt it was necessary to take this step to try and protect her friends... and we’re glad this was clear’