By James Simons-
Parts of Meghan’s letter ‘were deliberately omitted or suppressed in article’ to hurt her reputation, Meghan Markle’s legal representative told the High Court today. Over 50 journalists watched the online hearing from their laptops as the case by Meghan Markle against the Sunday Mail Online was fleshed out by Ms Markle’s legal counsel, Mr Sherborne. Sherborne presented his client’s claims that the newspaper “chose to deliberately omit or suppress parts of the letter in a highly misleading and dishonest manner” in its article.
“Even cutting out words in the middle of a sentence or whole sentences out of a paragraph,” he adds. He claims the defendant published private and highly sensitive information about the duchess’ life to “satisfy the curiosity” of its readers when there was no public interest. Legal representatives of the Associated Newspaper had written to Meghan’s lawyers to consider cancelling the case because of the pandemic, but Meghan insisted on continuing with the case.
Mr Sherborne claims the newspaper “stirred up” a dispute between Meghan Markle and her father Thomas, adding that the father and daughter’s relationship was “particularly warm” before “this dispute, this estrangement” Mr Sherborne claims Mr Markle was manipulated accused the defendant of trying to put a “straight jacket” on the case through its request for certain parts to be thrown out.
Antony White QC, representing the Associated Newspaper said the allegations about Thomas Markle “appear to have been put onto the record without the claimant (Meghan) having contacted her father to see if he agrees with them”.
“It is open to the claimant to say, as she does, that the presentation of the letter was misleading — which is firmly denied — but there is no basis for her to allege that anyone working for the defendant was dishonest in the drafting and editing process. He is seeking to have parts of Meghan’s claim struck out.
White insists that those parts are irrelevant or impermissible, not properly pleaded or disproportionate for the court to investigate.He told the hearing: “The claimant’s (Meghan’s) pleading at the minute asserts that she can rely on examples of articles without specifying all the articles she relies on.” White also claimed that Meghan could bot logically claim that her father would agree with her assertions about his treatment in obtaining the letter since he hasn’t spoken with him for two years.
The letter at the heart of the case detailed Meghan’s intimate ‘thoughts and feelings’ about her dad. The letter at the centre of the Duchess of Sussex’s legal battle with the newspaper detailed her intimate “thoughts and feelings” about her father’s health and their relationship. Court documents claim that the letter was “obviously private correspondence” and she did not expect the contents to be made public.
In one extract, the duchess wrote: “Your actions have broken my heart into a million pieces – not simply because you have manufactured such unnecessary and unwarranted pain, but by making the choice to not tell the truth as you are puppeteered in this.“Something I will never understand.”
“Further, it contained the claimant’s deepest and most private thoughts and feelings about her relationship with her father and were detailed by her at a time of great personal anguish and distress.
“The claimant intended the detailed contents of the letter to be private, and certainly did not expect them to be published to the world at large by a national newspaper, and without any warning.” The defence document also reveals that the publisher will rely on evidence from Mr Markle, meaning that should the case go to trial both Meghan and her father may have to testify against one another. Mr Markle, 75, had earlier claimed he felt pressured to share the letter after its contents were misrepresented in a magazine article.
In an interview months ago, Mr. said: “I have to defend myself. I only released parts of the letter because other parts were so painful.
“The letter didn’t seem loving to me. I found it hurtful.”
Meghan and Harry recently announced they were cutting off the Mail and three other tabloids, including the Sunday versions of their publication, thereby giving them “no corroboration and zero engagement”, over what the couple claim have been unfair and intrusive press coverage. Judge Justice Warby reserved judgement and said he would set a future date for the full hearing.