MEGHAN Markle claims publishing a letter she wrote to her dad was a “triple-barrelled invasion of privacy” as she fights to avoid a High Court showdown with him.
The Duchess of Sussex, 39, is suing the Mail on Sunday for privacy copyright and data protection over five articles published in February 2019.
This includes extracts from a “private and confidential” letter she sent to her dad Thomas Markle, 76, in August 2018.
Lawyers for the Duchess today told the High Court the publication of the “intrinsically private, personal and sensitive” letter was a “plain and serious invasion” of privacy.
Justin Rushbrooke QC, representing the duchess, described the hand-written letter as “a heartfelt plea from an anguished daughter to her father”.
He told the court Meghan had sent it to Thomas Markle “at his home in Mexico via a trusted contact … to reduce the risk of interception”.
The lawyer described its subsequent publication as “a triple-barrelled invasion of her privacy rights”.
‘GRASP THE NETTLE’
And he argued this breached the duchess’s right to “respect for her correspondence”, as well as her right to “her private and her family life”.
He told the court that ANL’s defence raised “a disturbing question about who has the right of control over the contents of a private letter”.
Mr Rushbrooke added: “Is it the writer of the letter or the editor of the Mail on Sunday?”
He continued: “There can only be one answer to that question and the answer would be the same irrespective of whether or not the writer of the letter is a duchess or any other citizen, and the answer is it is not the editor of the Mail on Sunday.”
Ian Mill QC, also representing the Duchess, argued “she and she alone” created a draft of the letter to her father “which she then transcribed by hand” in regards to her copyright claim.
He argued the letter was “an original literary work in which copyright subsists and is owned by the claimant” and asked the court to “grasp the nettle and decide the issue at this hearing”.
COURT SHOWDOWN
Meghan’s lawyers also applied for a “summary judgment” to be handed down, which would swerve the need for a trial and witnesses.
Top judges at the High Court in London will now decide whether to push on or decide on Meghan’s claims now.
But Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) – the newspaper’s publisher – say the facts of the case can only be determined by a trial.
Antony White QC, representing ANL, said there was “uncertainty as to a number of significant factual matters which can, and should, be investigated at trial when the court will have the full picture in terms of disclosure and evidence”
If the case goes ahead, both Thomas Markle and Meghan could take to the stand in the high-profile trial.
In a witness statement previously read before the court, Thomas said: “I am a realist and I could die tomorrow.
“The sooner this case takes place the better.”
The blockbuster case – one of several brought recently by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex against media organisations – was filed by Meghan’s lawyers in September 2019.
It was due to be heard at the High Court this month but was adjourned for nine months due to a “confidential” reason.
A string of pre-trial skirmishes have erupted in the build-up – including Meghan’s claims ANL had an “agenda” of publishing intrusive or offensive stories about her being struck out as “irrelevant” last May.
In return, a bid to name five of Meghan’s pals who gave an anonymous interview to People magazine were dismissed in August.
But in a sensational move, the MoS was given permission to rely on the unauthorised biography of Harry and Meghan, Finding Freedom by Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand, in its defence.
ANL claimed the Duchess had “compromised” any expectation of privacy in relation to the letter by allowing details of her private life to be published in the biography.
The remote hearing before Mr Justice Warby, which is expected to last two days, continues.
