I know this is off-topic, but COVID-19 has not significantly impact the number of filed Court Cases involving the Press.
At the same time as Justice Warby gave his verdict, The Spectator won a case in Edinburgh's High Court on the on-going Alex Salmond inquiry. In other words, The Spectator was granted by Lady Dorrian that documents on Salmond's submission should be fully published.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-the-spectator-went-to-court
https://www.thenational.scot/news/1...court-win-see-alex-salmond-ordered-committee/
https://www.theweek.co.uk/951950/co...salmond-court-case-bring-down-nicola-sturgeon
The Spectator (right of centre political magazine) has also been very critical of Harry and Meghan, however, unlike the Mail, it's mainly opinion columns based on news/stories surrounding the Sussexes. There is hardly any new revelation. This publication is also very pro-freedom of press, freedom of speech and libertarian, as mentioned in the article above. As mentioned earlier, I don't think suing a subscription-based publication is a good idea, given that it's sales has been going up since 2018, compared to other competitors.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EteUjENXUAMEhGh?format=jpg&name=small
After the Justice Warby's decision on issuing summary statement, rather than full trial, The Guardian (Left-leaning anti-monarchist newspaper) has released an article on the implication of Meghan's court case on the Media (not just the Daily Mail). It presented both side of the argument in terms of the significance rather than claimant v.s. defendant.
Could Meghan ruling stop the media using leaked documents?
Analysis: legal experts divided over significance of duchess’s win against Mail on Sunday
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-ruling-stop-the-media-using-leaked-documents
Richard Palmer has tweeted and included this article
Richard Palmer
@Royalreporter
Replying to
@Royalreporter
The debate about the wider implications of this case is just beginning. The BBC, Guardian, Times and Telegraph are among those who have asked whether it will damage the media’s ability to use leaked documents where there is a public interest.
8:14 PM · Feb 12, 2021·Twitter for iPhone
Richard Palmer
@Royalreporter
Replying to
@Royalreporter
Several experts always believed the copyright argument was difficult for Associated after its earlier defeat over using Prince Charles’s letter about China. But on @BBCr4today earlier @MarksLarks argued this case may lead to leakers going to the US media rather than the UK.
8:19 PM · Feb 12, 2021·Twitter for iPhone
Richard Palmer
@Royalreporter
Replying to
@Royalreporter
The UK currently ranks higher than the US in the index of world press freedom. Will this case and a growing number of privacy rulings in favour of public figures damage press freedom here?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
8:22 PM · Feb 12, 2021·Twitter for iPhone
Like The Spectator article (despite the court case being completely different), "freedom of press" continuing gets mentioned. In contrast, The Guardian was focusing more on the PR and celebrity aspects.
I also found a Telegraph article written by Camilla Tominey on the public v.s. private aspect of the Royal Family and how the debate has been in happening throughout history. (Behind paywall)
The royals aren't public property – and neither are their private exchanges with loved ones
Members of the House of Windsor have long argued that they reserve the right to a private life despite having to endure intrusion
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...lic-property-neither-private-exchanges-loved/
Edited: I have included The Guardian article, after Richard Palmer has tweeted and attached it. I have also added The Telegraph article by Camilla Tominey. I apologise for the multiple attempts in editing.