“This is a victory not only for me, but for all those who have been afraid to stand up for what is right,” began the statement released by the 40-year-old actress and wife of Prince Harry after three professional British judges found it given right. For the Duchess and her husband, it’s a great victory over the tabloids they hate.
As cheers erupted in California, where the famous couple reside, there was astonishment in London at the verdict. Sunday mail had strong indications that the publication of the letter was part of a Meghan publicity drive and that she still intended to take her out on the streets. The Duchess’s friends would be the magazine’s gossip People of the contents of the letter and Omar Scobie, his spokesperson and unofficial biographer, was also briefed. It is a moving letter from Meghan to Father Thomas, with whom she has a bad relationship.
In their judgment, the judges said in so many words that it was up to Meghan to determine what happened to the letter and how it was made public. Senior media attorney Mark Stephens said in a statement the move gives celebrities more control over how they are reported. In Brittany, at least. In the United States, where freedom of the press and expression is enshrined in the constitution, the media can easily publish the letter leaked by Thomas Markle.
Remarkably, this never led to a real lawsuit between Meghan and Sunday mail has come. The Duchess opted for a shortened legal procedure in which no witnesses are heard in court, which the newspaper wanted. For example, the newspaper had wanted to ask questions about his credibility. For example, Meghan claimed that she did not cooperate with Scobie’s book Find freedom. This turned out to be the case later. The judges called it an “unfortunate case of amnesia”.
Conservative politicians believe judges have taken the legislature’s seat by essentially drafting new privacy legislation. Ministers are now looking for ways to restore the balance between press freedom and the right to privacy. Sunday mail considering an appeal to the Supreme Court, the British Supreme Court. But it is not certain that this case is admitted there. The only alternative would be to involve the European Court of Human Rights. It would be a big step for a Eurosceptic newspaper.
“Infuriatingly humble social media ninja. Devoted travel junkie. Student. Avid internet lover.”