Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[Duc_et_Pair]

Well when Kobe Bryant died TMZ reported it before authorities could notify his next of kin. His poor wife had to find out from the media..everyone else knew before she did.
Then there is Queen Letizia of Spain. She's not very much liked by the spaniards and gets awful things written about her in the Spanish press.
Over in Sweden every few months tabloids would publish front page stories about Chris O'neill and Madeline. Like he's drunk and they are headed for divorce or his company is going bankrupt or he married her for royal connections. He's cheating on her, Madeline is unhappy, Chris gave madeline ultimatum, Chris made madeline move away from Sweden, he's evil bad influence..etc etc..No one from the swedish court or the swedish royal family comes out to defend chris and madeline whenever they get attacked by the press. But chris and madde probably don't read it anyway.

The extent to which Meghan has been abused (even her love for advocados was an instrument to bash her...) is incomparable. The negative press Doña Letizia met was rooted in the strong anti-monarchist, separatist, secessionist, republican agenda of the media outlets.

Here, like in the case of Prince Harry's mother, there is an agenda to destroy, willingly and deliberately, a person, purely for commercial gains, as has been revealed by the legal team during the interactive reading of the court case. I mean: searching a link between the favourite restaurant of the Duchess and "Jihadi John" (a Brit whom joined Isis and features in videos of gruesome beheadings): how even remotely can something be and how far will media even go to frame someone as a she-devil in own person?

I hope the Court case will open up the eyes and I hope the DM and it's owner will have to pay a high price. (Any damages for the Sussexes will be given to charities).

 

[Lumutqueen]

mI mean: searching a link between the favourite restaurant of the Duchess and "Jihadi John" (a Brit whom joined Isis and features in videos of gruesome beheadings): how even remotely can something be and how far will media even go to frame someone as a she-devil in own person?

But in this instance they’re reporting the truth. There were links between the mosque and the recruitment of “soldiers” to ISIS. A similar story was ran about Prince Charles opening the Finsbury Park Mosque which had Abu Hamza as it’s Imam for 16 years.

This comparison will undoubtedly be deleted.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

But in this instance they’re reporting the truth. There were links between the mosque and the recruitment of “soldiers” to ISIS. A similar story was ran about Prince Charles opening the Finsbury Park Mosque which had Abu Hamza as it’s Imam for 16 years.

This comparison will undoubtedly be deleted.

It is the same as if Dutch press would nail Queen Máxima for wearing a hat an atelier which possibly employs a seamstress of Syrian descent, of whom a friend to her brother has joined Isis. It is too far sought and too ridiculous for words.

Like that avocado story. It would be similar to slamming Camilla for eating broccoli probably harvested by illegals whom crossed the Channel. It is purely searching, and searching, and searching for the most unlikely reason to crucify a person once more. That pattern has become convincingly clear in this case.

 

[Queen Claude]

Do we even think it will go that far?

Has the key fact changed? The MoS published the letter without Meghan's consent. Does it matter if she hasn't seen or spoken to her father? Does it matter that he released the letter to counter the People interview. According to British law, copyright belongs to Meghan? Did they receive her consent? No, okay...case closed.

The reason (IMO) for the scope creep away from the "key fact" is first that the lawsuit itself claims that the publication of the letter is "part of a campaign by this media group to publish false and deliberately derogatory stories about her, as well as her husband." As you may recall the announcement of the lawsuit was part of a lengthy statement issued by Harry on October 1, 2019 (link). In other filings Meghan's attorneys claimed that the MoS omitted certain parts of the letter and those omissions changed the meaning of the letter. They also introduced other articles published by other Associated Newspapers companies (owner of Mail on Sunday).


The second reason for the scope creep away from the "key fact" and the reasons why there is discussion about whether Meghan's friends will testify is because the MoS's defense is that they were triggered to go after the letter due to the letter being referenced in the People Magazine cover story. In response to this being part of the MoS defense, last week Meghan's attorney's stated that Meghan had no prior knowledge of the People interview, that the letter would be referenced in the interview and that the references to the contents of the letter were incorrect.


P.S.

Her Royal Highness, the Duchess of Sussex has filed a claim against Associated Newspapers over the misuse of private information, infringement of copyright and breach of the Data Protection Act 2018.
(...)
A legal spokesperson from Schillings who are representing The Duchess of Sussex said:

“We have initiated legal proceedings against the Mail on Sunday, and its parent company Associated Newspapers, over the intrusive and unlawful publication of a private letter written by the Duchess of Sussex, which is part of a campaign by this media group to publish false and deliberately derogatory stories about her, as well as her husband. Given the refusal of Associated Newspapers to resolve this issue satisfactorily, we have issued proceedings to redress this breach of privacy, infringement of copyright and the aforementioned media agenda”.​

 

[Eskimo]

The extent to which Meghan has been abused (even her love for advocados was an instrument to bash her...) is incomparable. The negative press Doña Letizia met was rooted in the strong anti-monarchist, separatist, secessionist, republican agenda of the media outlets.

Here, like in the case of Prince Harry's mother, there is an agenda to destroy, willingly and deliberately, a person, purely for commercial gains, as has been revealed by the legal team during the interactive reading of the court case. I mean: searching a link between the favourite restaurant of the Duchess and "Jihadi John" (a Brit whom joined Isis and features in videos of gruesome beheadings): how even remotely can something be and how far will media even go to frame someone as a she-devil in own person?

I hope the Court case will open up the eyes and I hope the DM and it's owner will have to pay a high price. (Any damages for the Sussexes will be given to charities).

Never going to happen. If she wins this particular argument than the court would effectively be saying that media cannot publish anything that might cause the subject distress- that kind of press restriction only flies in places like North Korea.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Never going to happen. If she wins this particular argument than the court would effectively be saying that media cannot publish anything that might cause the subject distress- that kind of press restriction only flies in places like North Korea.

We are not talking about "distress" in personal meaning but "distress" in terms of unlawful infringement.

Meghan has the right not to be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on her honour or reputation. Like everyone, also Meghan has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Nothing to do with North Korea. Everything to do with a prudent and civil respect to human rights and freedoms.

 

[Hallo girl]

The extent to which Meghan has been abused (even her love for advocados was an instrument to bash her...) is incomparable. The negative press Doña Letizia met was rooted in the strong anti-monarchist, separatist, secessionist, republican agenda of the media outlets.

Here, like in the case of Prince Harry's mother, there is an agenda to destroy, willingly and deliberately, a person, purely for commercial gains, as has been revealed by the legal team during the interactive reading of the court case. I mean: searching a link between the favourite restaurant of the Duchess and "Jihadi John" (a Brit whom joined Isis and features in videos of gruesome beheadings): how even remotely can something be and how far will media even go to frame someone as a she-devil in own person?

I hope the Court case will open up the eyes and I hope the DM and it's owner will have to pay a high price. (Any damages for the Sussexes will be given to charities).

I do not think it had anything to do with a favourite restaurant, or maybe I read the wrong papers, if I remember correctly they were linking the Grenfell kitchen to a mosque that had alleged links with "Jihadi John "and others.
I am not defending the article I am establishing the correct facts.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I do not think it had anything to do with a favourite restaurant, or maybe I read the wrong papers, if I remember correctly they were linking the Grenfell kitchen to a mosque that had alleged links with "Jihadi John "and others.
I am not defending the article I am establishing the correct facts.

It was said in Court.

" [...]

The Mail on Sunday was dishonest because while cherry-picking extracts to suit its negative narrative of the duchess, “they knew perfectly well it was not the whole letter yet they suggested it was the whole letter”, the court heard.

On the other nine articles, on which she is claiming aggravated damages, Sherborne said it was all about the distress she felt at the realisation the defendant had an agenda of “intrusive and offensive” stories about her. The articles included: “Harry’s girl is (almost) straight outta Compton: gang-scarred home of her mother revealed”; “Kitchen supported by Meghan’s cookbook is housed inside mosque ‘which has links to 19 terror suspects including Jihadi John’”; and “How Meghan’s favourite avocado snack – beloved of all millennials – is fuelling human rights abuses, drought and murder.”

[...] "

See link: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...sten-in-as-case-against-mail-on-sunday-starts

 

[Kataryn]

I do not think it had anything to do with a favourite restaurant, or maybe I read the wrong papers, if I remember correctly they were linking the Grenfell kitchen to a mosque that had alleged links with "Jihadi John "and others.
I am not defending the article I am establishing the correct facts.

The connection was that the women of Grenfell, a lot of muslimas under them, took up the offer of a mosque to establish their kitchen there. While they used the "common rooms" on this place of worship, otrher parts were allegedly used by radical islamists (which happens here in Germany as well) and the papers drew a "connection" that in fact wasn't there. As if you are responsible in a hotel for other guests' political activities....


If court let the tabloids get away in this case, it actively takes away Meghan's human rights of respect and decent treatment. For it is not the "facts" of these articles but what the papers made out of them. Saying she grew up in a place is one thing. Make it look as if she (actively) lived in a gang-held place should need at least some sort of truth apart from the fact that there was a closeness of places. It's about the quality and aim of articles that actively went against things she can't change when they did not find real proof of her personal involvement. That is something no judge should allow! And if they loose and see they need to dig more - let them! If there is something to dig out, I'm the first to accept such an article. You have to stand by what you do and did! But not such crap mix of lies and non-information mixed together to form a negative attitude towards her by the reader.
So my war cry is: let them work for their scandals!!

 

[Lumutqueen]

I do not think it had anything to do with a favourite restaurant, or maybe I read the wrong papers, if I remember correctly they were linking the Grenfell kitchen to a mosque that had alleged links with "Jihadi John "and others.
I am not defending the article I am establishing the correct facts.

It was said in Court.
“Kitchen supported by Meghan’s cookbook is housed inside mosque ‘which has links to 19 terror suspects including Jihadi John’”; and “How Meghan’s favourite avocado snack – beloved of all millennials – is fuelling human rights abuses, drought and murder.”

It wasn't said in court that Meghans favourite restaurant was linked to Jihadi John. That statement came from an earlier post of yours Duc (see that post below).

You have quoted what was actually said in court, that there were links to the kitchen supported by Meghan. But nothing was ever mentioned about a favourite restaurant, which Hallo Girl is quite right to point out.

I mean: searching a link between the favourite restaurant of the Duchess and "Jihadi John" (a Brit whom joined Isis and features in videos of gruesome beheadings): how even remotely can something be and how far will media even go to frame someone as a she-devil in own person?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

It wasn't said in court that Meghans favourite restaurant was linked to Jihadi John. That statement came from an earlier post of yours Duc (see that post below).

You have quoted what was actually said in court, that there were links to the kitchen supported by Meghan. But nothing was ever mentioned about a favourite restaurant, which Hallo Girl is quite right to point out.

It was said in Court by David Sherborne QC for the Duchess.
See: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...sten-in-as-case-against-mail-on-sunday-starts

 

[Lumutqueen]

It was said in Court by David Sherborne QC for the Duchess.
See: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...sten-in-as-case-against-mail-on-sunday-starts

I mean we can argue this all day, but nowhere in that article does it state that Meghans favourite restaurant was linked to Jihadi John.

The only sentence that includes the word favourite is this one “How Meghan’s favourite avocado snack – beloved of all millennials – is fuelling human rights abuses, drought and murder.”

Got nothing to do with restaurants

 

[Jacknch]

Let's move on now please - the Court Case is complicated enough to discuss without our adding our own debates on incidental details that really don't matter. Thank you.

 

[Jacknch]

Please note that posts that go way beyond the scope of this thread and the topic have been edited and responses removed. Once again, please do not use this thread as a platform to debate things that are not directly related to the Court case.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Harry & Meghan: Legal Action Against the Press - October 2019

After last weeks pre-trial hearing the Judge has ruled that some of the claims can be struck out.

So 3 things now struck out of Meghan's claim against Mail on Sunday:
1. the newspaper acted dishonestly, and in bad faith
2. the Mail on Sunday "deliberately dug up or stirred up conflict" between Meghan and her Dad
3. the paper had an "agenda" to portray her in damaging light”

https://twitter.com/x/status/1256181049605980160

A response for The Duchess’ spokespeople:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1256185100166979584

The Duchess has chosen not to appeal the decision.

 

[Alisa]

I honestly believe that all the struch out claims are completely true!
*However*, the contents of the private communication between Meghan and her father were offered up to the Daily Mail by Meghan's father. It is not that they had to go digging for it. It was given to them and they skewed it and conformed it to fit their agenda.

 

[Pranter]

I honestly believe that all the struch out claims are completely true!
*However*, the contents of the private communication between Meghan and her father were offered up to the Daily Mail by Meghan's father. It is not that they had to go digging for it. It was given to them and they skewed it and conformed it to fit their agenda.

I think though the legal issue is the paper had no right to publish the content even if given to them due to copyright laws.



LaRae

 

[ACO]

As the case is about copyright and not defamation of character, it’s not really surprising. Those are separate issues. I’m sure they knew this ruling was likely but took a chance anyways.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

After last weeks pre-trial hearing the Judge has ruled that some of the claims can be struck out.

So 3 things now struck out of Meghan's claim against Mail on Sunday:
1. the newspaper acted dishonestly, and in bad faith
2. the Mail on Sunday "deliberately dug up or stirred up conflict" between Meghan and her Dad
3. the paper had an "agenda" to portray her in damaging light”

https://twitter.com/x/status/1256181049605980160

A response for The Duchess’ spokespeople:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1256185100166979584

The Duchess has chosen not to appeal the decision.

The full judgment, as well as a summary of the legal reasons for the decision, are to be found here:

HRH The Duchess of Sussex -v- Associated Newspapers | Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

 

[Kataryn]

A media report about the judgment by the Guardian:


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...in-privacy-claim-against-mail-on-sunday-owner

 

[victor1319]

What makes me wonder - and please correct me if I am wrong - the letter in question was given to the newspaper by Meghan's father. So, he, with full intent, breached her privacy.

Does she not have to sue him first? He was a perpatrator here in a direct way. The newspaper profited fom this, but indirectly via the actions of Meghan's father.

If the newspaper did something wrong, than it would be this breach of "copyright" laws. But has the jurisdiction not dramatically changed in this area in the last years to protect whistleblowers and press?

I mean, if Meghan claims "copyright" over this letter, then the letter in question got to have some importance at least. But she was an important VIP back then and her own father the informant-whistleblower. And if her father is protected from her and by her, so is the newspaper...

 

[Elenath]

What makes me wonder - and please correct me if I am wrong - the letter in question was given to the newspaper by Meghan's father. So, he, with full intent, breached her privacy.

Does she not have to sue him first? He was a perpatrator here in a direct way. The newspaper profited fom this, but indirectly via the actions of Meghan's father.

If the newspaper did something wrong, than it would be this breach of "copyright" laws. But has the jurisdiction not dramatically changed in this area in the last years to protect whistleblowers and press?

I mean, if Meghan claims "copyright" over this letter, then the letter in question got to have some importance at least. But she was an important VIP back then and her own father the informant-whistleblower. And if her father is protected from her and by her, so is the newspaper...

No, it's a copyright issue. He's allowed to sell it, like I can sell a book, but the papers (or anyone) can not publish it in the same way I can not publish the contents of a book not owned by me.
Whether Meghan (or the letter) is of importance is irrelevant.

 

[Kataryn]

I find it really charming what Mail Online calls it a "victory" that the Judge struck out parts of Meghan's application because "public policy and the interest of the parties require that the trial should be kept strictly to the issues necessary for the fair determination of the dispute between the parties”. (quote from today's judgment).
So what was struck out were not parts that were wrongly introduced by Meghan's solicitors, but points that make no sense to investigate, as they were not important as legal points in relation to the cost of the investigation.
Meaning: even without a judgment on these points, the Court can find a judgment on the main points of Meghan's application. And these are all still in - breach of copyright etc.



Plus, the last sentece of the judgment is this:
Some aspects of the case that I have struck out at this stage may be revived if they are put in proper form.

Why talk about a "victory" if the whole case is still open?

 

[Zonk]

Exactly!

Honestly, I thought the points that were thrown out (with the exception of the paper had an "agenda" to portray her in damaging light” were all fluff and had nothing to do with the real issue in the suit...that they Daily Mail did not have Meghan's permission to print the letter.

Its also worth noting that the Judge said some of the claims can be revived later.

 

[Somebody]

I find it really charming what Mail Online calls it a "victory" that the Judge struck out parts of Meghan's application because "public policy and the interest of the parties require that the trial should be kept strictly to the issues necessary for the fair determination of the dispute between the parties”. (quote from today's judgment).
So what was struck out were not parts that were wrongly introduced by Meghan's solicitors, but points that make no sense to investigate, as they were not important as legal points in relation to the cost of the investigation.
Meaning: even without a judgment on these points, the Court can find a judgment on the main points of Meghan's application. And these are all still in - breach of copyright etc.



Plus, the last sentece of the judgment is this:
Some aspects of the case that I have struck out at this stage may be revived if they are put in proper form.

Why talk about a "victory" if the whole case is still open?

I don't read the Mail, so don't know what they claimed but I did read the full ruling: clearly this is a victory for them. At this point in the case, they did not deal with the privacy issues; they asked for certain aspects of the case to be removed (struck out) from the case and were granted ALL that they asked and more.

The judge was clear that the claimant (Meghan's team) did a poor job in arguing these specific claims by using generalizations and some examples and even requiring the 'defendant' to do what should be their job (i.e., come up with the evidence for the claims made by Meghan). The judge also detailed which arguments may be used in the future (a few, mainly related to the newspaper's dealings with her father - that's what the latest sentence referred to) and which not (most other claims).

So, based on this ruling the case no longer includes any claims on;
- 'acting dishonestly and in bad faith' (even phrases that weren't included in this request were struck out after Meghan's lawyer claimed they were supposed to have the same intent - and is not allowed 'back in');
- 'stirring up conflict' between Meghan and her father (if Meghan wants to include anything about how the newspaper 'used' her father that is permissible but she needs to come up with more specific evidence which the current general accusations lack);
- an 'agenda' by the newspaper (not admissible as part of this case; if she would want to pursue this further she would need to start a separate case and (recurring theme) come up with the evidence instead of general accusations and some insufficiently argued examples)

I'd say, based on Meghan's previous statements, the first and last for her are at the heart of this whole case, so while they must have known that there would be a risk that this part wouldn't stand (the privacy part has stronger legal grounds and will be argued in court), I am sure they are disappointed. If they thought this ruling likely, as ACO suggests, I agree with the judge that the court room (and all its resources) are not meant for (in my own words) airing personal grievances and making a point - but should be used proportionally.

 

[Somebody]

Exactly!

Honestly, I thought the points that were thrown out (with the exception of the paper had an "agenda" to portray her in damaging light” were all fluff and had nothing to do with the real issue in the suit...that they Daily Mail did not have Meghan's permission to print the letter.

Its also worth noting that the Judge said some of the claims can be revived later.

But why include them if they had nothing to do with the real issue?

In this pre-trial hearing, the judge did not evaluate any other claims than those that have been 'struck out', as only these claims were challenged at this point. It is noteworthy that Meghan lost on all accounts this time as all claims (and more!) were granted to the defendant. Of course, she might still win the privacy case but if so, the damages awarded will probably be much lower (as her lawyer made clear some of these arguments were to increase damages).

And the judge was very specific about what can be revived and what cannot be revived. The issues that can be revived were rather limited and would need better/more evidence for them to be admissible to the case.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

It's a victory because Meghan's legal team tried to take a fair legal dispute (over a copyright issue) and use it as a platform to prove a media campaign against her. The judge has rightly said, "If you have a legal issue to pursue in this case, pursue it, but leave your other vendettas to the side."

Meghan's team far overreached in trying to use (what seems to be) a legitimate breach of the copyright law to "prove to the world" that Meghan is the victim of some campaign. They've been firmly and resoundingly set in their place for doing so.

Let us not pretend that had this ruling been favorable to the Sussexes, it would not be treated as a victory for them. This was going to be a victory for whichever side it was decided in favor of.

Whether the issues can be re-written and re-submitted for consideration is a matter of law, not up to the discretion of the judge.

 

[Jacknch]

It is not unusual for a case to be brought that has additional elements to it as ancillary to the main part of the case.

As separate issues on their own, there may not have been much or enough evidence on their own merit or warrant a full blown stand-alone-case separate for the main complaint/grievance.

 

[Betsypaige]

I think they should have agreed to settle this out of court, and I hope that they will have to pay the costs of about £50,000.00

 

[ACO]

Mostly I think Meghan's team wanted some things on record. In order to defend themselves the Mail on Sunday also admitted a few things, including editing the letter and misrepresenting content in their publication. It has nothing to do with this case but could come in handy down the line if she did pursue a defamation cause.

At the end of it all this was just her side tossing in a lot knowing things could be struck out. It isn't uncommon. We will likely see more of this once the trial happens on both sides of the case. The Mail on Sunday got a victory here. Let's see what the actual trial brings.