Mail on Sunday is the one on trial. It is this publisher who acted illegally and is trying to evade responsibility; create a circus and distract from the point of this case, that the Mail on Sunday Illegally published my private letter. “” data-reactid = “34”> Earlier this month, the duchess filed a request to prevent the Associated Newspapers from publicly naming the five women. In a witness statement written by Markle and obtained by E! News claimed that Associated Newspapers was threatening to publish the names. “These five women are not being judged, and neither am I,” he wrote. “The editor of the Mail on Sunday is the one on trial. It is this publisher who acted illegally and is trying to evade responsibility; create a circus and distract from the point of this case, that the Mail on Sunday Illegally published my private letter. “
Mail on Sunday
of breaking precedents and abusing the legal process by identifying these anonymous people, a privilege these newspapers really trust to protect their own unidentified sources. ” data-reactid = “39”> He concluded his statement with: “I respectfully ask the court to treat this legal matter with the sensitivity it deserves, and to prevent the editor of the Mail on Sunday of breaking precedents and abusing the legal process by identifying these anonymous people, a privilege these newspapers really trust to protect their own unidentified sources. ““The request raises a fairly brief but very important point,” said Rushbrooke, “which is to what extent the court should protect the identity of confidential news sources that are not parties to the action, nor at this initial stage can they be told that they are witnesses in the action. “
Persons magazine in the United States. “” data-reactid = “43”> He continued: “We say that at least four of the five sources have no real role at all on the issue raised by the defendant’s defense regarding the interview with Persons magazine in the United States. “
“One of those [sources], and only one in the claimant’s case, “Rushbrooke noted,” made a passing reference to the claimant’s written letter to his father, which is at the heart of this invasion of privacy claim. “
Rushbrooke also rejected the Associated Newspapers ‘alleged claim that “by putting their names on a public court document,” Markle “compromised” her friends’ right to privacy.
Persons relevant, “he said in court.” data-reactid = “47”> “The real position is, let there be no doubt about it, that the plaintiff has done nothing of the sort. It was the defendant who did the interviews with Persons relevant, “he said in court.
“It was the defendant who forced the plaintiff to identify the names of the five friends in a court document by submitting a request for additional information that required those names to be given and, for its part, we allege that the claimant has done what she did. it could reasonably and reasonably protect your confidentiality and privacy rights. “
“Let there be no doubt about it, these two publications are the ones that triggered the chain reaction of other publicity given by other bodies to the response,” he said. “It was the defendant and only the defendant because only the defendant had the document that started the forest fire.”
Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex
Rushbrooke argued: “Other litigants do not do commercial fodder with the other party’s allegations, but how this one does it and how this has stated in correspondence that this same document is adequately reportable by the media, although they kindly said they will not publish it until the result of today’s hearing, precisely for this reason we say that an order … is necessary. “
“The question is not ‘Should their identities be revealed?’, That has happened. It is ‘Should they be anonymized in these procedures?'” White asked.
White argued that “there is no adequate evidentiary basis [for the application]”and said” there is no evidence of four of the five friends and evidence of the fifth [Friend B] has proven unsatisfactory. “Rushbrooke had noted in court that” Friend B “has provided a witness statement in support of Markle’s request.
Persons It was information about the claimant, but she does not say that it is private or information that she seeks to protect. “” data-reactid = “77”> White further raised, “The information they revealed to Persons it was information about the claimant, but she does not say it is private or information that it seeks to protect. “
The hearing ended without a decision from Warby, who said he will come in writing as soon as he can.
