Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[MaiaMia_53]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

No, the judge instructed the defendant, Associated Newspapers Limited, to inform anyone it "maintains is or might be entitled to copyright" on the letter that he or she is "entitled to apply to be joined as a claimant or defendant to these proceeding" (paragraph #171).

Right, exactly. This is the legal language you have helpfully cited. What I said was in essence the same thing, in layman's terms. There were only 4 people in question, brought up during hearings, so that's not a mystery. But obviously, anyone who wishes to come forward with a copyright claim for supposedly taking part in drafting the letter, can do so, if they are willing to endure a trial to decide any claim they pursue. I believe the former palace staffers in question have recently departed their palace employment. So, crickets is probably the option for these individuals.

I will be surprised if any copyright claims are made by any other parties. IMO one of the initial goals in some quarters was to get Meghan to drop the case. It would be rather curious to see any former palace employees attempting to prolong matters on the narrow issue of personal claims on their part, which the Fail/ Associated Newspapers ineffectually and 'fancifully' utilized as a defense.

[Curryong]

The Mail published much much more of Meghan's letter than one paragraph, (it featured in a whole double page spread in the MoS) and it's clear that Justice Warby came down on Meghan's side ref what they published. How any newspaper felt justified in doing what they did is mind blowing.

And I'm so glad she's won. Go Meghan!

[MaiaMia_53]

One thing is as clear as day: Meghan won. The significance of her win should not be discounted or downplayed. She did not decide to bring this case only to assuage her own hurt feelings and emotional pain. Like she said in her statement, this is a victory for everyone who suffers abuse at the hands of tabloid defamation and intrusiveness. I'm paraphrasing her words obviously.

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

... judge ruled that the defendant's arguments on ownership "occupy the shadowland between improbability and unreality" (166) but "cannot be described as fanciful" (167). As noted in the judgment (13), an entirely "fanciful" case should and would not be permitted to go forward to trial.

Ah, great. Thanks for the precise legal language which confirms that not everything in this case was 'entirely fanciful'. A lot of money was wasted IMO with Associated Newspaper's OTT tactics. In the end Meghan won.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53

What I said was in essence the same thing, in layman's terms. There were only 4 people in question, brought up during hearings, so that's not a mystery.

I see, thank you for the clarification.

Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53

Like she said in her statement, this is a victory for everyone who suffers abuse at the hands of tabloid defamation and intrusiveness. I'm paraphrasing her words obviously.

She indeed referred to "misinformation" in her statement, but as I said in an earlier post, it does not appear that she put forward a claim of defamation in court.

Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53

Ah, great. Thanks for the precise legal language which confirms that not everything in this case was 'entirely fanciful'. A lot of money was wasted IMO with Associated Newspaper's OTT tactics. In the end Meghan won.

The precise legal language in regard to the primary test of whether the claimant is entitled to win on summary judgment was "fanciful" ("entirely" was my word):

13. Both parties have referred me to Lewison J’s classic exposition of the right approach to summary judgment [...] the seven key principles are these:

“i) The court must consider whether the [defendant] has a “realistic” as opposed to a “fanciful” prospect of success;

[...]

[MaiaMia_53]

Meghan won her claims for intrusion of privacy and breach of copyright. The judge concluded:
"The claimant had a reasonable expectation that the contents of the letter would remain private. The Mail articles interfered with that reasonable expectation."

And the judge further ruled that there was no need for a full trial on the issue of privacy because no other decision would have been reached had one been held.

There were a lot of ins-and-outs and hearings and requests for discovery and arguments made in this case. The summary judgment details everything in legal language that is not easy to wade through for the average person. Most people have to lean on reliable reports and summaries, and even then some details might not be fully understood by everyone. I have a background as a paralegal, so I have a good grasp of the actual legal wording in the judgment and what it means. But it is convoluted, weighty and detailed, which is what the law requires (a big reason why going to law school and passing the bar exam is not a breeze).

Meghan didn't mention 'defamation' in her statement. As I said earlier, I paraphrased her words. Part of what she actually said:
"After two long years of pursuing litigation, I am grateful to the courts for holding Associated Newspapers and The Mail on Sunday to account for their illegal and dehumanizing practices."

"For these outlets, it’s a game. For me and so many others, it’s real life, real relationships, and very real sadness. The damage they have done and continue to do runs deep. The world needs reliable, fact-checked, high-quality news. What The Mail on Sunday and its partner publications do is the opposite..."

"We all lose when misinformation sells... For today, we have all won."

"I share this victory with each of you – because we all deserve justice and truth, and we all deserve better."

Thanks to @eya for providing a link earlier to Meghan's full statement:
https://twitter.com/emynash/status/1359910297365012481


You questioned aspects of Meghan's statement earlier, Tatiana Maria. The fact that Meghan won the case is surely the main thing that matters to her at this point. I believe she has a right to express however she feels about the win, which does not have to match precise legal wording in the summary judgment.

As well, despite basing my opinions and interpretations on the facts of the case, I am not adhering to using the exact legal language in my overall assessments. The summary judgment is there to be read, and there are accurate, unemotional reports available, along with the actual judgment. Thanks for your precision.

Meanwhile, I stand by my belief that the Fail/Associated Newspapers/Mail Online/Mail on Sunday have been egregious, uncaring and purposely harmful in their intent and in their actions from beginning to end. I hope this case will set a positive precedent in rolling back at least some of their damaging practices. Whatever monetary damages are assessed, it is certain that the money will go to a good cause, which means a lot in the battle against devastating injustices and tabloid abuses.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/...WCH-273-Ch.pdf

[camelot23ca]

Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams

The article was in the Mail within a half hour, I believe, of the ruling, as the headline piece.

A headline is a headline! By the metrics that matter to them the Mail has done well out of all of this. I’m sure they would have liked to have been able to go to trial to draw things out even more but I doubt the paper feels it’s lost. Even if Meghan is awarded very generous damages I think deciding to publish the letter and then take the issue as far as possible through the courts instead of reaching a settlement will turn out to have been a very good business decision on the part of The Mail.

[MaiaMia_53]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

... In practical terms that may be the case, but legally, the judge granted that "making allowance for editorial judgment I conclude that it was legitimate for this purpose to disclose paragraph [15]."

But more pertinent, below is the main conclusion by the judge in regard to the above specifics of the Fail/ANL/MOnline/MOS defense:

"The only tenable justification for any such interference was to correct some inaccuracies about the letter contained in the People article. On an objective review of the articles in the light of the surrounding circumstances, the inescapable conclusion is that, save to a very limited extent, the disclosures made were not a necessary or proportionate means of serving that purpose.

"For the most part they did not serve that purpose at all. Taken as a whole the disclosures were manifestly excessive and hence unlawful."

To your below point @Tatiana Maria:

"I am not aware of any restrictions on making money off of writing about a legal case to which the writer is a party."

I am not referencing any legal decision or precedent in stating my opinion (which many other observers agree with) that the Daily Fail was blatantly out of line in prejudicially writing about an ongoing case for the purposes of making money while attempting to make Meghan look bad, thus adding insult to injury over the course of the suit's preliminary hearings.

Thankfully, it appears that at some point, the Fail may have been warned to cease blatantly writing about aspects of the case. In particular, when Meghan and her attorneys requested that the case be delayed for confidential reasons, the judge warned that releasing any of the confidential details to the public would result in contempt of court.

Honestly, it was an egregious and uncaring decision by the Fail to print the letter and to not meet Meghan's original demands from the outset. The Fail's behavior and decisions are clearly not and have never been in the interests of humanity at large.

[Curryong]

Originally Posted by camelot23ca

A headline is a headline! By the metrics that matter to them the Mail has done well out of all of this. I’m sure they would have liked to have been able to go to trial to draw things out even more but I doubt the paper feels it’s lost. Even if Meghan is awarded very generous damages I think deciding to publish the letter and then take the issue as far as possible through the courts instead of reaching a settlement will turn out to have been a very good business decision on the part of The Mail.

It depends on what sort of damages Meghan's legal team seeks. They may ask for some of the profits the Fail have made out of participating in this saga.

And even so, is this behaviour the way any business organisation should choose to operate? No credibility, no ethics or honour, no caring factor, no matter who gets hurt in the process. Wonderful I'm sure! Really makes one long to be a journalist!

[AC21091968]

I know this is off-topic, but COVID-19 has not significantly impact the number of filed Court Cases involving the Press.

At the same time as Justice Warby gave his verdict, The Spectator won a case in Edinburgh's High Court on the on-going Alex Salmond inquiry. In other words, The Spectator was granted by Lady Dorrian that documents on Salmond's submission should be fully published.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...-went-to-court
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19...red-committee/
https://www.theweek.co.uk/951950/cou...icola-sturgeon

The Spectator (right of centre political magazine) has also been very critical of Harry and Meghan, however, unlike the Mail, it's mainly opinion columns based on news/stories surrounding the Sussexes. There is hardly any new revelation. This publication is also very pro-freedom of press, freedom of speech and libertarian, as mentioned in the article above. As mentioned earlier, I don't think suing a subscription-based publication is a good idea, given that it's sales has been going up since 2018, compared to other competitors.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EteUjENX...jpg&name=small

After the Justice Warby's decision on issuing summary statement, rather than full trial, The Guardian (Left-leaning anti-monarchist newspaper) has released an article on the implication of Meghan's court case on the Media (not just the Daily Mail). It presented both side of the argument in terms of the significance rather than claimant v.s. defendant.

Could Meghan ruling stop the media using leaked documents?
Analysis: legal experts divided over significance of duchess’s win against Mail on Sunday
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...aked-documents

Richard Palmer has tweeted and included this article

Richard Palmer @RoyalReporter
Replying to @RoyalReporter
The debate about the wider implications of this case is just beginning. The BBC, Guardian, Times and Telegraph are among those who have asked whether it will damage the media’s ability to use leaked documents where there is a public interest.
8:14 PM · Feb 12, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Richard Palmer @RoyalReporter
Replying to @RoyalReporter
Several experts always believed the copyright argument was difficult for Associated after its earlier defeat over using Prince Charles’s letter about China. But on @BBCr4today earlier @MarksLarks argued this case may lead to leakers going to the US media rather than the UK.
8:19 PM · Feb 12, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Richard Palmer @RoyalReporter
Replying to @RoyalReporter
The UK currently ranks higher than the US in the index of world press freedom. Will this case and a growing number of privacy rulings in favour of public figures damage press freedom here?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
8:22 PM · Feb 12, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

https://twitter.com/RoyalReporter/st...55278189199368

Like The Spectator article (despite the court case being completely different), "freedom of press" continuing gets mentioned. In contrast, The Guardian was focusing more on the PR and celebrity aspects.

I also found a Telegraph article written by Camilla Tominey on the public v.s. private aspect of the Royal Family and how the debate has been in happening throughout history. (Behind paywall)

The royals aren't public property – and neither are their private exchanges with loved ones
Members of the House of Windsor have long argued that they reserve the right to a private life despite having to endure intrusion
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-fa...changes-loved/

Edited: I have included The Guardian article, after Richard Palmer has tweeted and attached it. I have also added The Telegraph article by Camilla Tominey. I apologise for the multiple attempts in editing.

[Princess Luna]

I'm absolutely thrilled that Meghan von her case. It's the right step in protecting the right to privacy!

[Curryong]

I expected all the highfaluting discussions in the media about 'Press freedoms' in the wake of Meghan winning this judgement. Every similar case will in future be fought on its merits. However, Meghan's letter to her father was hardly a matter of national security, freedom of the British Press, or anything else they might come up with.

Meghan's private letter to her father was treated by the MoS in far less edifying fashion. They received it from her aggrieved parent and quickly decided to give it a double page publication in their rag, citing, when she objected, 'public interest'.

The publication of that letter wasn't in the public interest.
It was in fact purely in their interest alone, raking up more bad will against Meghan amongst the British public, while at the same time pursuing money and Clickbait. Nothing noble or edifying about their behaviour at all. I hope Meghan receives millions in compensation from this grubby newspaper and its online edition.

[MARG]

^^^^^ I am in total agreement. For whatever reason they declared war on Meghan and, having long since crossed the line in both truth and accuracy, to see the Court drop the hammer is golden.

Since any damages awarded are going to charity I hope they award damages commensurate with the crime and put them to the screws.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53

Meghan won her claims for intrusion of privacy and breach of copyright.

[...]

Meghan didn't mention 'defamation' in her statement. As I said earlier, I paraphrased her words. Part of what she actually said:
[I]"We all lose when misinformation sells... For today, we have all won."

[...]

You questioned aspects of Meghan's statement earlier, Tatiana Maria. The fact that Meghan won the case is surely the main thing that matters to her at this point. I believe she has a right to express however she feels about the win, which does not have to match precise legal wording in the summary judgment.

As well, despite basing my opinions and interpretations on the facts of the case, I am not adhering to using the exact legal language in my overall assessments. The summary judgment is there to be read, and there are accurate, unemotional reports available, along with the actual judgment. Thanks for your precision.

I understand that neither you nor the Duchess of Sussex were using precise legal language (nor am I, save for quoting from the judgment), and I was not referring to her statements about her feelings.

The main point was that, as you said, the claims she has won pertain to privacy and copyright, rather than any form of misinformation.

Originally Posted by MARG

and, having long since crossed the line in both truth and accuracy, to see the Court drop the hammer is golden.

The Court's judgment noted inaccuracies or untruths in the article by People Magazine and in statements made by Thomas Markle, but not (as far as I saw) in the Mail articles.

[QueenMathilde]

Meghan and Harry are now in the position of not being able to promote their ventures. They are too thin skinned to go on social media and they sued the papers so the papers now hate them and won't post positive things about them. It will be interesting to see if this will affect their future money making ventures. They might not have won after all.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53

But more pertinent, below is the main conclusion by the judge in regard to the above specifics of the Fail/ANL/MOnline/MOS defense:

"The only tenable justification for any such interference was to correct some inaccuracies about the letter contained in the People article. On an objective review of the articles in the light of the surrounding circumstances, the inescapable conclusion is that, save to a very limited extent, the disclosures made were not a necessary or proportionate means of serving that purpose.

"For the most part they did not serve that purpose at all. Taken as a whole the disclosures were manifestly excessive and hence unlawful."

The judge's conclusion in regard to paragraph 15 was pertinent to the sentence to which I responded: "They should not have published any portion of Meghan's letter to her father" (I have boldfaced the "any"). This differs from the conclusion reached by the judge, who expressed the view that the publication of paragraph 15 alone would have been legitimate.

Likewise, in the section you quoted, he conceded that "very limited" disclosures from the letter could have been deemed "necessary": "save to a very limited extent, the disclosures made were not necessary".

[evolvingdoors]

Originally Posted by AC21091968

I know this is off-topic, but COVID-19 has not significantly impact the number of filed Court Cases involving the Press.

At the same time as Justice Warby gave his verdict, The Spectator won a case in Edinburgh's High Court on the on-going Alex Salmond inquiry. In other words, The Spectator was granted by Lady Dorrian that documents on Salmond's submission should be fully published.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...-went-to-court
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19...red-committee/
https://www.theweek.co.uk/951950/cou...icola-sturgeon

The Spectator (right of centre political magazine) has also been very critical of Harry and Meghan, however, unlike the Mail, it's mainly opinion columns based on news/stories surrounding the Sussexes. There is hardly any new revelation. This publication is also very pro-freedom of press, freedom of speech and libertarian, as mentioned in the article above. As mentioned earlier, I don't think suing a subscription-based publication is a good idea, given that it's sales has been going up since 2018, compared to other competitors.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EteUjENX...jpg&name=small

After the Justice Warby's decision on issuing summary statement, rather than full trial, The Guardian (Left-leaning anti-monarchist newspaper) has released an article on the implication of Meghan's court case on the Media (not just the Daily Mail). It presented both side of the argument in terms of the significance rather than claimant v.s. defendant.

Could Meghan ruling stop the media using leaked documents?
Analysis: legal experts divided over significance of duchess’s win against Mail on Sunday
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...aked-documents

Richard Palmer has tweeted and included this article

Richard Palmer @RoyalReporter
Replying to @RoyalReporter
The debate about the wider implications of this case is just beginning. The BBC, Guardian, Times and Telegraph are among those who have asked whether it will damage the media’s ability to use leaked documents where there is a public interest.
8:14 PM · Feb 12, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Richard Palmer @RoyalReporter
Replying to @RoyalReporter
Several experts always believed the copyright argument was difficult for Associated after its earlier defeat over using Prince Charles’s letter about China. But on @BBCr4today earlier @MarksLarks argued this case may lead to leakers going to the US media rather than the UK.
8:19 PM · Feb 12, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Richard Palmer @RoyalReporter
Replying to @RoyalReporter
The UK currently ranks higher than the US in the index of world press freedom. Will this case and a growing number of privacy rulings in favour of public figures damage press freedom here?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
8:22 PM · Feb 12, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

https://twitter.com/RoyalReporter/st...55278189199368

Like The Spectator article (despite the court case being completely different), "freedom of press" continuing gets mentioned. In contrast, The Guardian was focusing more on the PR and celebrity aspects.

I also found a Telegraph article written by Camilla Tominey on the public v.s. private aspect of the Royal Family and how the debate has been in happening throughout history. (Behind paywall)

The royals aren't public property – and neither are their private exchanges with loved ones
Members of the House of Windsor have long argued that they reserve the right to a private life despite having to endure intrusion
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-fa...changes-loved/

Edited: I have included The Guardian article, after Richard Palmer has tweeted and attached it. I have also added The Telegraph article by Camilla Tominey. I apologise for the multiple attempts in editing.

I disagree, "The royals aren't public property – and neither are their private exchanges with loved ones" I think working royals are a form of public property, just as politicians are. you can't be a representative of a country and not be, to a degree, it's property. In fact the royals relay heavily on this notion that they and their legacy and history are properties (again in a way) of britain and the public- for the simple fact that the public holds the power to abolish the monarchy should they choose to.
Do working royals deserve privacy on personal exchanges with loved ones? yes. However, this case happened because the loved one of the royal broke her privacy, likely by her own request.

And I agree with Palmer, I would be very concerned if I were a journalist right now, especially with the pushes by some to also restrict social media (which to a degree is wonderful, but also problematic). The media must be able to move and report freely, or else they lose their ability to be the guard dogs of democracy.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53

I am not referencing any legal decision or precedent in stating my opinion (which many other observers agree with) that the Daily Fail was blatantly out of line in prejudicially writing about an ongoing case for the purposes of making money while attempting to make Meghan look bad, thus adding insult to injury over the course of the suit's preliminary hearings.

I see. In that case, I don't quite understand your meaning in post #2052: "The judge allowed the Fail a lot of rope in this case even to them getting away with making money off of writing about the case in the early going". As I understand it, the authority of the judge to allow or disallow the writing and publication of articles by the Mail is constrained to legal decisions supported by legal precedents.

Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53

Thankfully, it appears that at some point, the Fail may have been warned to cease blatantly writing about aspects of the case. In particular, when Meghan and her attorneys requested that the case be delayed for confidential reasons, the judge warned that releasing any of the confidential details to the public would result in contempt of court.

Of course, a breach of reporting restrictions by any party would be in contempt of court. But I am not sure how this principle could hypothetically be used by the judge to declare the Daily Mail to be legally out of line in writing about public aspects of the case.

[Curryong]

Queen Mathilde, British newspapers turned against the Sussexes long before the couple sued anybody. There were negative stories continually coming out about them from their engagement onwards. And even after they sued the newspapers continued reporting on their doings.

And unfortunately, knowing the British tabloid Press as I do, I would bet on the fact that so long as stories about them bring clicks, meaning money for these rags, there will be articles about the Sussexes in the media.

[RandyDrx]

Originally Posted by QueenMathilde

Meghan and Harry are now in the position of not being able to promote their ventures. They are too thin skinned to go on social media and they sued the papers so the papers now hate them and won't post positive things about them. It will be interesting to see if this will affect their future money making ventures. They might not have won after all.

Precisely, their target audience is probably 18 to 34 year-olds, judging by how often their PR proclaimed themselves as a "hip young couple" despite both are nearing 40.

However, aside from some royal watchers and some fans on Twitter, most 18 to 34 year-olds don't like the concept of royalty and prefer meritocracy instead, especially when said royals complained that their lives are so hard compared to the average people.

Their target audience probably knows more about BTS and K-Pop than royalty.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by evolvingdoors

Do working royals deserve privacy on personal exchanges with loved ones? yes. However, this case happened because the loved one of the royal broke her privacy, likely by her own request.

By my understanding, the reason the Court held to account Associated Newspapers Limited rather than Thomas Markle for the publication of the letter is simply that the claimant sued ANL rather than Mr. Markle.

Given that under English law, even sharing part of one's own life story is legally actionable insofar as it contains information about another individual, I have the impression that it would not have made a difference to the outcome if Mr. Markle had been the defendant:

(3) Nor can it be said that Mr Markle’s undoubted right to tell his own life story is unqualified, [...] More pertinent is McKennitt v Ash, where the Court had to address a defence that the offending disclosures relating to the claimant were not actionable because they were part of the defendant’s own life story. The Court of Appeal was unimpressed by the notion that “the … claimant’s article 8 rights, if any, were to be subordinated to the article 10 rights of the … defendant”: [2006] EWCA Civ 1714 [2008] QB 73 [50] (Buxton LJ). The legal principle was explained by Eady J at first instance [2005] EWHC 3003 (QB) [2006] EMLR 10 [77]:

“… in broad terms, … if a person wishes to reveal publicly information about aspects of his or her relations with other people, which would attract the prima facie protection of privacy rights, any such revelation should be crafted, so far as possible, to protect the other person’s privacy…. It does not follow, because one can reveal one’s own private life, that one can also expose confidential matters in respect of which others are entitled to protection if their consent is not forthcoming”.