Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[soapstar]

Let’s get back to discussing the topic of the thread - the lawsuit. Any further off-topic comments will be deleted.

[Gawin]

More from Byline Investigates:

"Prince Harry Sun Case Revealed - The Hacked and Blagged “Smoking Gun” Stories"

https://www.bylineinvestigates.com/m...-gun-stories-1


And an opinion piece by Brian Cathcart, founder of the controversial Hacked Off:

"It's not about Harry's mental state; it's about papers breaking the law"

https://www.byline.com/column/68/article/2510

I'm sharing two statements made by Amber Melville-Brown in an article ""Duchess is right to take newspaper to court," published in the October 4 issue of the Times:

"The royal couple are said to be taking a risk but using the force of law is sometimes necessary to stand up to a bully."

"Lancing the boil of unlawful media activity through litigation may not be the safest or the most comfortable option to bring the media to account but, in the meantime, this action may garner some respect by the public and herald a more healthy relationship with the media, when, as the duke says, “we have never needed responsible media more”.

Melville-Brown is a partner and head of the international media department at Withers, a London law firm.

https://www.withersworldwide.com/en-...melville-brown

[BorgQueen]

Thank you Gawin for posting this. Pieces of the puzzle suddenly fit together. Some of those named are people I had thought were out of the picture. How very base and amoral these people are. How disappointing they have not been sufficiently deterred by the courts in the past. I can only hope that Harry and Meghan have a win.

[AnnaNotherThing]

I have a few questions about all this: What happens when H&M actually succeed in getting what they want, i.e. the press leave them alone?

And moving forward, how will future interaction/engagement with the press look when it comes to publicising their causes?

Will there be a degree of cautiousness/indifference when dealing with the Sussexes caused by the results of the lawsuit?

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by AnnaNotherThing

I have a few questions about all this: What happens when H&M actually succeed in getting what they want, i.e. the press leave them alone?

I think you’re a bit confused as to what the lawsuits actually mean. Meghan is suing the Mail on Sunday, effectively, for copyright and Henry is suing 2 papers for hacking which I believe occurred in 2005. It has literally nothing to do with the attacks the couple have suffered the last 2 or so years.

What it is, is a stand against the press, they’re going for them where they can, they cannot stop them writing bad things about the couple but this is a show of strength.

At the end of the court cases, if successful, Henry and Meghan are likely to get a monetary outcome and that’s it. Which they will be donating to charity.

Originally Posted by AnnaNotherThing

And moving forward, how will future interaction/engagement with the press look when it comes to publicising their causes?

Nothing will change. You can look at past court cases that have been won by the RF, nothing changes. One can barely live without the other.

Originally Posted by AnnaNotherThing

Will there be a degree of cautiousness/indifference when dealing with the Sussexes caused by the results of the lawsuit?

Papers/Magazines perhaps might think twice about what they print, especially where the information came from. However they’ll still print “she said he said” crap.

[Jacknch]

Let's keep on the topic please - we cannot speculate upon the result or consequences of the Court case and we will only end up veering away from matters happening right now.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Can someone explain why Harry is suing for hacking incidences that happened 14yrs ago? There have been a lot of links and articles and the last one I read said he was doing it out of spite.

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

Can someone explain why Harry is suing for hacking incidences that happened 14yrs ago? There have been a lot of links and articles and the last one I read said he was doing it out of spite.

The hacking case has been an ongoing criminal investigation for many years (Rupert Murdoch case as part). The News of the world and other papers being investigated for phone tapping and also buying medical reports. Harry is among a number of people who have come out in the past year and sued the paper for the invasion of their privacy. Considering the law suits timing, they may have not been allowed to file while still active in criminal, or advised to wait.

I don't see how it is petty. Harry and Chelsy's cell phone messages were hacked and released. As were her private medical records among other things.

[Gawin]

Steve Coogan supports Prince Harry's lawsuit:

https://news.sky.com/video/steve-coo...fight-11831709

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

I think you’re a bit confused as to what the lawsuits actually mean. Meghan is suing the Mail on Sunday, effectively, for copyright and Henry is suing 2 papers for hacking which I believe occurred in 2005. It has literally nothing to do with the attacks the couple have suffered the last 2 or so years.

Formally, it seems you are right. Nonetheless Harry's statement clearly made the link and even the 'media information' explained it as follows:

“We have initiated legal proceedings (…) over the intrusive and unlawful publication of a private letter (…) which is part of a campaign (…) to publish false and deliberately derogatory stories about her, as well as her husband. (…) we have issued proceedings to redress this breach of privacy, infringement of copyright and the aforementioned media agenda”.

[Gawin]

A few statements from an article published in today's Times: "Why did Prince Harry and Meghan choose now to sue newspapers?" by Jonathan Ames.

Meghan's lawsuit:

"The newspaper could defeat her claims for breach of privacy and misuse of private information if it can establish that the duchess authorised earlier references to the letter by her “friends” in a US gossip magazine."

"Amber Melville-Brown, a partner at Withers, points out, the Mail on Sunday “may adopt a robust hypocrisy public interest defence, arguing that Meghan’s letter to her father was not the conciliatory missive that those in camp duchess have portrayed it to be.” “The problem with legal action of the nature embarked upon by the duchess is that even if successful it is shutting the publication door after the media horse has bolted."

Harry's lawsuit:

"When it comes to the duke’s phone-hacking claim there are still potential issues over the six-year limitation period, which means the claim will be out of time if the duke became aware of the full nature of the hack outside that frame."

Mark Stephens, a partner at Howard Kennedy expects backlash: "From here on in, I think we will see increasingly hostile and negative coverage of Harry and Meghan from the media.”

[Madame Verseau]

It's been one week that the lawsuit was launched and the Sussexes have been silent. The media has been running non atop stories pro and anti lawsuit,mostly against. I wonder what motivates the anti - fear of a Sussex victory in court?

[alvinking]

The hypocrisy out there is really disgusting. Yesterday social media and the press was all about the WagathaChristie story and Rebekah Vardy was complaining about being bullied while 7 months pregnant in social media, that Coleen Rooney should not have exposed her, keep it mind that it has been only one day, and many in the media were and are signing this gospel. Yet, the Duchess of Sussex has been bullied in social media, and in the tabloids press throughout the 9 months of her pregnancy, yet she should shut up and take it. Never complain, never explain is the mantra

[Madame Verseau]

Tabloids are getting desperate

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ins...people-2019-10

So the Mirror is claiming Meghan set up the interview so the friend talks about the letter and trap her dad? One the friend most likely got permission to talk; MoS did not get permission to print. Dad is still going to be called for the deletions.

[Osipi]

Answer me a question, please? Why do you pay attention to something that has the purpose in life as being a bird cage liner?

[Zaira]

Originally Posted by Gawin

A few statements from an article published in today's Times: "Why did Prince Harry and Meghan choose now to sue newspapers?" by Jonathan Ames.

e claim will be out of time if the duke became aware of the full nature of the hack outside that frame."

Mark Stephens, a partner at Howard Kennedy expects backlash: "From here on in, I think we will see increasingly hostile and negative coverage of Harry and Meghan from the media.”

So more of the same? "Harry and Meghan are terrible, Meghan abuses her staff, they are ruining the monarchy, Harry is mentally unstable, Meghan is a controlling diva, their marriage is in trouble, meghan is a fraud/witch/insert here, Harry is whipped/angry/erratic/insert here, etc.,"

Oh goodie but also just proves Harry's points in his letter even more.

The bit about the DM lawsuit sounds dubious to me, but we shall see how things pan out. I am sure the DM has very smart lawyers just like the Sussexes do.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Zaira

So more of the same? "Harry and Meghan are terrible, Meghan abuses her staff, they are ruining the monarchy, Harry is mentally unstable, Meghan is a controlling diva, their marriage is in trouble, meghan is a fraud/witch/insert here, Harry is whipped/angry/erratic/insert here, etc.,"

Unfortunately that's how the tabloids can strike back.

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

Tabloids are getting desperate

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ins...people-2019-10

So the Mirror is claiming Meghan set up the interview so the friend talks about the letter and trap her dad? One the friend most likely got permission to talk; MoS did not get permission to print. Dad is still going to be called for the deletions.

It's not just the Mirror. The Times also discussed it in the article I referenced earlier. Legal experts have stated this might be a possible legal defense taken by the Mail on Sunday.

Did Meghan share the letter with her friends and then authorize them to talk to People Magazine?

If this can be proven: "The newspaper could defeat her claims for breach of privacy and misuse of private information if it can establish that the duchess authorised earlier references to the letter by her “friends” in a US gossip magazine."

The Mail might also "adopt a robust hypocrisy public interest defence, arguing that Meghan’s letter to her father was not the conciliatory missive that those in camp duchess have portrayed it to be.”

In other words, the Mail could argue it printed the letter in order to let the public know the "real story."

This is the "nuance" Rudolph referred to earlier. The lawsuit isn't necessarily a slam-dunk case of copyright infringement.

[victor1319]

Originally Posted by Gawin

Did Meghan share the letter with her friends

I did not keep up with the Sussexes.

In which media outlet were Meghan's friends talking about the letter?

-----------------

Found it! well, then the case is clear, right? no breach of privacy!

[Gawin]

People Magazine, an American gossip magazine

https://people.com/royals/meghan-mar...after-wedding/

[Zaira]

Originally Posted by Gawin

It's not just the Mirror. The Times also discussed it in the article I referenced earlier. Legal experts have stated this might be a possible legal defense taken by the Mail on Sunday.

Did Meghan share the letter with her friends and then authorize them to talk to People Magazine?

If this can be proven: "The newspaper could defeat her claims for breach of privacy and misuse of private information if it can establish that the duchess authorised earlier references to the letter by her “friends” in a US gossip magazine."

The Mail might also "adopt a robust hypocrisy public interest defence, arguing that Meghan’s letter to her father was not the conciliatory missive that those in camp duchess have portrayed it to be.”

In other words, the Mail could argue it printed the letter in order to let the public know the "real story."

This is the "nuance" Rudolph referred to earlier. The lawsuit isn't necessarily a slam-dunk case of copyright infringement.

This still seems rather flimsy though. I mean this still feels like it falls into the "interesting to the public" but not "in the public interest"

If Meghan was writing to government officials, even in a personal capacity, that to me is "in the public interest" but, taking the idea that she authorised her friends to share the letter at face value, a tit for tat with her dad is still a personal matter that ultimately has no bearing on the public condition.

I mean again, good lawyers are experts at winning on the thinnest of margins but I imagine the Sussex lawyers have fairly robust defenses too.