Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[poppy7]

Judge ruled they will remain anonymous.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1290945752483672064

Interesting. I didn't think they would get that ruling. Case will go ahead so.

 

[ACO]

Judge Mr Justice Warby: "The media invariably maintain that the names of sources should not be disclosed. In this case the roles are reversed — the media wants to publicise the names of five sources, while the claimant wishes them to remain confidential."

So basically the judge questioned why the media who claims to value protection of sources suddenly wants to go against that. That’s a valid point. If these friends are called to be a witness then it’s of public record. Until then they won’t be used for clickbait.

 

[poppy7]

Judge Mr Justice Warby: "The media invariably maintain that the names of sources should not be disclosed. In this case the roles are reversed — the media wants to publicise the names of five sources, while the claimant wishes them to remain confidential."

So basically the judge questioned why the media who claims to value protection of sources suddenly wants to go against that. That’s a valid point. If these friends are called to be a witness then it’s of public record. Until then they won’t be used for clickbait.

So if they are witnesses their names will be revealed?

 

[ACO]

So if they are witnesses their names will be revealed?

Yes. If it ever gets that far to which they are called to testify then that’s public record. Though my guess it would only really be the one who mentioned the letter, not all five. But that seems likes a long ways from now.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Judge Mr Justice Warby: "The media invariably maintain that the names of sources should not be disclosed. In this case the roles are reversed — the media wants to publicise the names of five sources, while the claimant wishes them to remain confidential."

So basically the judge questioned why the media who claims to value protection of sources suddenly wants to go against that. [...]

Could you provide the link to the full ruling? Without the context, I would not necessarily interpret the quote as "questioning why"; the judge would likely have obtained the medium's reasoning from its submissions and would rule on it in the judgment.

 

[Elenath]

Here is a link to an article in the Telegraph.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...acy-claim-mail-sunday-publisher-loses-latest/

 

[poppy7]

Yes. If it ever gets that far to which they are called to testify then that’s public record. Though my guess it would only really be the one who mentioned the letter, not all five. But that seems likes a long ways from now.

Read the article. It is as it should be and is just barring the names being released pre trial. Which is exactly as it should be.

If one or more is subpoenaed to give evidence. I doubt he would block their names.

This is a very correct ruling.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Here is the ruling:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/duchess-of-sussex-v-associated.pdf

 

[poppy7]

Here is the ruling:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/duchess-of-sussex-v-associated.pdf

That is quite the wrap on the knuckles. I mean the media are behaving per the media. But a slap for Meghan.

 

[ACO]

Read the article. It is as it should be and is just barring the names being released pre trial. Which is exactly as it should be.

If one or more is subpoenaed to give evidence. I doubt he would block their names.

This is a very correct ruling.

Agreed. That was always my stance. There was zero reason (other than front pages and clickbait) for the friends to be revealed now. If they are called to give statements on record, then that’s different. Until then source protection works both ways.

 

[Heavs]

It seems like from the ruling he just wants both parties to get on with it.

The names will officially come out at the trial if they have to give evidence.

I guess it's a win that the DM can't immediately upload the articles it had on the 5 ladies but it doesn't really affect anything else about the case.

Interestingly among slapping down both sides for their behaviour he said it seems likely that the claimants were briefing the press about confidential proceedings, calling out Omid Scobie's twitter feed in particular.

 

[poppy7]

It seems like from the ruling he just wants both parties to get on with it.

The names will officially come out at the trial if they have to give evidence.

I guess it's a win that the DM can't immediately upload the articles it had on the 5 ladies but it doesn't really affect anything else about the case.

No he very clearly wrapped both on the knuckles for using the court case to bring up other issues and being interested in playing this out in the court of public opinion.

Bit of a slap for Meghan. But needed to be said. She has been hyperbolic and went over the top. The mediansre always hyperbolic and go over the top.

 

[ACO]

The judge rightfully called them both out but I especially took note of him pointing out all these “hearings” are slowing things down. The MOS is the one mostly doing that. Trying to drag it out. Hopefully now that BOTH sides have been called out this will get on with it.

He correctly ruled in this. Not even sure how MOS can even cover their own trial anyways. Conflict of interest much? Anyways glad those many many articles were also pointed out. As well as Meghan’s irrelevant claims.

Judge being fair. And he right. None of this stuff is to do with copyright.

 

[poppy7]

The judge rightfully called them both out but I especially took note of him pointing out all these “hearings” are slowing things down. The MOS is the one mostly doing that. Trying to drag it out. Hopefully now that BOTH sides have been called out this will get on with it.

He correctly ruled in this. Not even sure how MOS can even cover their own trial anyways. Conflict of interest much? Anyways glad those many many articles were also pointed out. As well as Meghan’s irrelevant claims.

Judge being fair. And he right. None of this stuff is to do with copyright.

It hasn't just been the mail. Of course they will cover it. The Sun covered Depp.

To be fair it was in both cases interest to hold this off until after the summer.

 

[Heavs]

No he very clearly wrapped both on the knuckles for using the court case to bring up other issues and being interested in playing this out in the court of public opinion.

Bit of a slap for Meghan. But needed to be said. She has been hyperbolic and went over the top. The mediansre always hyperbolic and go over the top.

Yes I read the judgement and I know he told both sides off for leaking and making this case about more than the specific issue at hand - which the Sussex's had previously tried and failed to make part of the case anyway.

From what I read he's granting continuing anonymity at least of the moment "so the proper administration of justice" can continue and that case can move forward. But that that doesn't mean they will be anonymous forever.

Given Finding Freedom discussions I find it amusing that Omid Scobie is officially mentioned as being used by Meghan and her team for leaking.

 

[ACO]

It hasn't just been the mail. Of course they will cover it. The Sun covered Depp.

To be fair it was in both cases interest to hold this off until after the summer.

And that was ridiculous too.

 

[poppy7]

Yes I read the judgement and I know he told both sides off for leaking and making this case about more than the specific issue at hand - which the Sussex's had previously tried and failed to make part of the case anyway.

From what I read he's granting continuing anonymity at least of the moment "so the proper administration of justice" can continue and that case can move forward. But that that doesn't mean they will be anonymous forever.

Given Finding Freedom discussions I find it amusing that Omid Scobie is officially mentioned as being used by Meghan and her team for leaking.

Isn't he? He is certainly 'in favour' of.

 

[poppy7]

And that was ridiculous too.

The court case? Meh. I followed it. It is an appalling situation. But I wouldn't want to be called a wife beater.

The two sides basically used the media there ahead of the case in Washington.

 

[Madame Verseau]

Frankly I think DM wanted the 5 friends named in order to discredit them before trial. Now both parties cannot try their arguments on the courthouse steps. I trust this also means Thomas Markle can't be used before trial either. However, US Weekly reported Dad tried to reach out to Meghan during the process and she did not That is one story DM did not run and I imagine DM lawyers were not happy about it. No telling what where in those letters he allegedly sent. Dad on the stand is the LAST thing DM wants; he's a loose cannon.

The letter was redacted by Meghan's lawyers. I wonder if the judge will rule to have it interacted in light in having the friends named.

 

[poppy7]

Frankly I think DM wanted the 5 friends named in order to discredit them before trial. Now both parties cannot try their arguments on the courthouse steps. I trust this also means Thomas Markle can't be used before trial either. However, US Weekly reported Dad tried to reach out to Meghan during the process and she did not That is one story DM did not run and I imagine DM lawyers were not happy about it. No telling what where in those letters he allegedly sent. Dad on the stand is the LAST thing DM wants; he's a loose cannon.

The letter was redacted by Meghan's lawyers. I wonder if the judge will rule to have it interacted in light in having the friends named.

They were just being provocative. They didn't do anything until she mentioned it and then thought..hang on a minute.

The name of Friend B, at least, will become public knowledge, as they are 100% going to be called as a witness. All the royal reporters already know the name thanks to the Barrister.

 

[Eskimo]

Yes I read the judgement and I know he told both sides off for leaking and making this case about more than the specific issue at hand - which the Sussex's had previously tried and failed to make part of the case anyway.

From what I read he's granting continuing anonymity at least of the moment "so the proper administration of justice" can continue and that case can move forward. But that that doesn't mean they will be anonymous forever.

Given Finding Freedom discussions I find it amusing that Omid Scobie is officially mentioned as being used by Meghan and her team for leaking.

Very interesting

 

[tommy100]

I'm not surprised the judge has agreed they shouldn't be named for now, with the media obsessiveness about who they are, it would, IMO, take a huge legal reason to allow them to be named. The judge did say, I think, that they would be named if any gave evidence.


Definitely interesting that Omid is mentioned as working with the team to leak stories, certainly may prove problematic for the couple in the future given they frequent demands for "privacy" and shutting out some press.

 

[ACO]

The Mail on Sunday singled out Omid, not the judge. The judge just stated that is was "likely" to be true. And while Omid (Harpars Bazaar) did have that info, so did Telegraph under Hannah (she published before Omid), Town and Country via Victoria and Newsweek by Jack. They have all had "firsts" about various things of this case.

I suspect MoS mentioned Omid because they want to call him in as a witness (for obvious reasons) but it would be interesting if they make note of the others too. Per the documents it seems the court is following all the media articles related to this case as they pointed out many of the MoS articles and how they exploited their involvement for the publication.

It overall was a fascinating read.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The Mail on Sunday singled out Omid, not the judge. [...] Per the documents it seems the court is following all the media articles related to this case [...]

From reading the judgment, my understanding is that the evidence of the claimant's conduct was given to the judge by the defendant, and the evidence of the defendant's conduct was given to the judge by the claimant.

I believe it is the normal procedure in British courts of law, that the evidence is given by the parties to the case, and the judge does not insert independent evidence of his or her own.

As examples, note the references to the claimant and defendant, their solicitors, and their evidence in paragraphs 23 and 27:

23. The claimant, through Jenny Afia of her solicitors, Schillings, suggests that before these events the defendant had been astute to publicise its own case. The evidence supports that claim. Ms Afia exhibits a series of articles published by the defendant on its own website on the day of service of the Defence, and “multiple news articles” which followed on the defendant’s website and on other media outlets. Among these is an article dated 16 January 2020 headed “Meghan Markle’s private texts to best pal Jessica Mulroney could be released in bombshell court case”. The article explains that “The defence papers filed at the High Court state the newspaper will seek disclosure from Meghan of her exchanges with her friend Jessica Mulroney”. The Defence does indeed say this.

27. The defendant suggests that the claimant’s side briefed the press in relation to this application, and the evidence bears this out. The record shows that the application notice and supporting witness statements were all submitted for filing at 8:06am and filed at 8.32am. The evidence of Mr Mathieson is that they were served on the defendant at 8:30am and that by 8:45am, within 15 minutes of receiving the application, he received a call from a representative of Sky News asking if he had a comment to make about it. The defendant’s side had not made the application public. At 9:30am, a copy of the title page of the claimant’s witness statement was posted on the Twitter feed of someone called Omid Scobie, accompanied by a quotation attributed to “a close source”, criticising the Mail for wishing to “target five innocent women through the pages of its newspapers and its website”. Mr Scobie then tweeted the passage from the witness statement that I have quoted above. The inference invited is that he had been provided with a copy by representatives of the claimant. This seems very likely. From 10:02 the national media were reporting at length on the content of the claimant’s witness statement. The Sun reported under the headline “GAME PLAYING. Meghan Markle says ‘I’m not on trial’ as she tried to ban ‘vicious’ naming of pals who gave interview to support her”. There was much in similar vein, in (among other outlets) Sky News, The Times, The Express online, The Daily Telegraph. Again, no detailed analysis has been conducted but it seems improbable that all this reporting was a product of searches of the CE File system.

The judge did say, I think, that they would be named if any gave evidence.

The name of Friend B, at least, will become public knowledge, as they are 100% going to be called as a witness.

The names will officially come out at the trial if they have to give evidence.

The judgment reserves the question of anonymity during the trial for the pre-trial review. However, I notice that the given purposes of the pre-trial confidentiality order would also seem to be applicable to the trial itself:

62. At this stage, continued anonymity not only upholds the agreement made between People magazine and the five friends, and the reasonable expectations which that generated; it also supports the proper administration of justice by shielding the friends from the “glare of publicity” in the pre-trial stage. Generally, it does not help the interests of justice if those involved in litigation are subjected to, or surrounded by, a frenzy of publicity. At trial, that is a price that may have to be paid in the interests of transparency. But it not a necessary concomitant of the pre-trial phase. It is reasonable to be concerned that in that phase the peculiarly febrile atmosphere surrounding this case, and some of the coverage, could act as a deterrent and undermine fairness and due process. The evidence includes, for example, an article published by the defendant that speculates about whether one named individual will “still back Meghan in ‘trial of the century’” after a falling-out between them. The evidence shows to my satisfaction that this article is misleading and inaccurate, as it relied on some garbled and false claims contained in third-party publications. But it is an illustration of the kind of undesirable pressure that potential witnesses might face.

[...]

65. [...] These orders will last until trial or further order. They will be kept under review and in any event reconsidered at the Pre-Trial Review, in the light of the circumstances as they then stand. Contrary to Mr White’s submission, I do not believe that decisions of this kind must be made “once and for all”. Rather the contrary. Such orders should be made or not made according to the evidence before the Court and the circumstances prevailing at the time. If made, they are required to be kept under review as circumstances change.

 

[Lord_Royal]

A PDF Link to the decision of Mr. Justice Welby: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/duchess-of-sussex-v-associated.pdf


It is the correct decision. And as the Court held, it is an interim decision. The language in paragraphs 3 and 65 of the Court's decision show that the Court is more than prepared to change direction and order disclosure of the names.


Strategically, Associated Newspapers has taken every procedural step they could to stretch this dispute out. That is because Associated Newspapers has a few theories about how this dispute would proceed at trial, namely:


1. Meghan's friends' names WILL be disclosed at the point of trial as they will ALL be called as witnesses;


2. At least one of those friends will not perjure themselves; and


3. Meghan's role in the People article will not be favourable to her.



Therefore, Associated Newspapers appears to be operating on the (in my view correct) assumption that this case will not proceed to trial and that, at the 11th hour, Meghan will withdraw her claim, so they are taking every opportunity they can to show her that she will not control the media and that her attempts to do so will fail.



The Court's decision smacks down both parties and if I was advising Meghan, I would be warning her that the Court does not appear all that sympathetic to her.

 

[ACO]

That is of the assumption Meghan lied and was not involved. I am fairly certain Associated Press and MOS assumed this would also go their way. It did not. Meghan could have settled by now. She clearly has not.

Also this court doesn't seem sympathetic to any of them. Judge rightfully smacked them both down but it's lists of issues with the MOS much longer. They all need to stop trying to play this out with the public and let the courts do their job.

 

[poppy7]

Fascinating.

First rule of court games. If there is evidence of something happening once, it will happen again or has happened before. A bit of an own goal for Meghan. I mean it is the trade of the media to leak.

 

[poppy7]

A PDF Link to the decision of Mr. Justice Welby: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/duchess-of-sussex-v-associated.pdf


It is the correct decision. And as the Court held, it is an interim decision. The language in paragraphs 3 and 65 of the Court's decision show that the Court is more than prepared to change direction and order disclosure of the names.


Strategically, Associated Newspapers has taken every procedural step they could to stretch this dispute out. That is because Associated Newspapers has a few theories about how this dispute would proceed at trial, namely:


1. Meghan's friends' names WILL be disclosed at the point of trial as they will ALL be called as witnesses;


2. At least one of those friends will not perjure themselves; and


3. Meghan's role in the People article will not be favourable to her.



Therefore, Associated Newspapers appears to be operating on the (in my view correct) assumption that this case will not proceed to trial and that, at the 11th hour, Meghan will withdraw her claim, so they are taking every opportunity they can to show her that she will not control the media and that her attempts to do so will fail.



The Court's decision smacks down both parties and if I was advising Meghan, I would be warning her that the Court does not appear all that sympathetic to her.

I agree. There is also the fact they will have wanted to.delay beyond the Depp case... so.thr stories are spread out. That is all they care about.

 

[poppy7]

That is of the assumption Meghan lied and was not involved. I am fairly certain Associated Press and MOS assumed this would also go their way. It did not. Meghan could have settled by now. She clearly has not.

Also this court doesn't seem sympathetic to any of them. Judge rightfully smacked them both down but it's lists of issues with the MOS much longer. They all need to stop trying to play this out with the public and let the courts do their job.

The papers won't settle. It isn't her that refuses to.

The money involved is nothing to the media. I mean it's a million pound court case.

The law and media don't really mix. The tabloids being, in general, morally repugnant. Which is primarily what he was talking about.

Doesn't matter to them but to Meghan that is huge.

 

[VictoriaB]

That is of the assumption Meghan lied and was not involved. I am fairly certain Associated Press and MOS assumed this would also go their way. It did not. Meghan could have settled by now. She clearly has not.

Also this court doesn't seem sympathetic to any of them. Judge rightfully smacked them both down but it's lists of issues with the MOS much longer. They all need to stop trying to play this out with the public and let the courts do their job.

Settlement requires some form of agreement between the parties. Meghan could certainly discontinue her claim but I would be interested in knowing what that involves in the UK. Here in Queensland, once a Defence has been entered, the Claim can only be withdrawn with the leave of the Court or the consent of the Defendant (i.e. Associated Press).

If the Defendant agrees to the discontinuance they can do so on any terms they wish but the Plaintiff (i.e. Meghan) is liable for costs, it's just that the Defendant can agree to waive them. If they do so with the leave of the Court, then the Judge can make any orders s/he thinks appropriate regarding costs.

So even if Meghan wants to withdraw her claim (and if the process in the UK is the same as it is here) she may not be able to do so without paying AP a hefty sum in costs if AP decides to play hardball.