A former aide to the Duchess of Sussex regretted not giving evidence after she won her legal battle against a newspaper publisher, the Court of Appeal has heard.
Meghan, 40, won her High Court privacy claim after a judge found the publication of a letter she wrote to her estranged father was unlawful.
But Jason Knauf, Prince Harry and Meghan’s former communications secretary, claimed she had written the letter on the “understanding that it could be leaked”, according to a witness statement released on Wednesday.
Today the court heard a source close to Mr Knauf said he regretted not giving a statement to lawyers for Associated Newspapers, publisher of the Mail on Sunday, before the High Court case.
Mr Knauf worked for the Sussexes until March 2019 before becoming CEO of Prince William and wife Kate’s Royal Foundation, which he is due to leave at the end of the year.
Keith Mathieson, representing the publisher, told appeal court judges it was only in July this year, months after Meghan’s High Court triumph, that Associated Newspapers had “received information from a confidential source to the effect that Mr Knauf now regretted not providing a witness statement to us”.
He added: “Mr Knauf was plainly a central figure in the events he describes.
“He was a senior and trusted member of the royal household staff and he continues to occupy an important position.
“His witness statement is measured in tone and he has been careful not to include evidence of matters beyond his own personal knowledge. Given the high-profile nature of this litigation and the likelihood of his evidence (if admitted) being widely reported, as well as the position he holds, it is hardly conceivable that he would say anything he did not believe to be true and I know of nothing in his evidence which is subject to any reasonable challenge.”
Meghan sued Associated Newspapers Limited over five articles that reproduced parts of a “personal and private” letter she wrote to her father.
Lord Justice Warby gave his High Court ruling in a summary judgment, avoiding the need for a trial.
But ANL says the case should go to a trial on Meghan’s claims including breach of privacy and copyright.
Andrew Caldecott QC, representing ANL, told the court yesterday that the letter to Thomas Markle from Meghan was “not a loving letter, not a generous letter”, contrary to how it was presented.
Justin Rushbrooke QC, for Meghan, previously described the case as “very straightforward” and said her human rights were “triply engaged” by the publication of part of the letter.
In her written evidence to the Court of Appeal, Meghan denied she thought it likely that her father would leak the letter, but “merely recognised that this was a possibility”.
She said: “To be clear, I did not want any of it to be published, and wanted to ensure that the risk of it being manipulated or misleadingly edited was minimised, were it to be exploited.”
Sir Geoffrey Vos, sitting with Dame Victoria Sharp and Lord Justice Bean, will give their ruling at a later date.
Meghan sued Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), which is also the publisher of MailOnline, over five articles that reproduced parts of a "personal and private" letter to her father.
She won her case earlier this year after Lord Justice Warby ruled that ANL's publication of Meghan's letter to her father was unlawful in a summary judgment, avoiding the need for a trial.
The challenge, launched in the Court of Appeal over the last three days, argued the case should go to a trial on Meghan's claims including breach of privacy and copyright.
Andrew Caldecott QC, representing ANL, told the court on Thursday that Mr Markle faced "nasty and untrue" allegations in an article published by People magazine in the US and there was a public interest in correcting them.
He added that the letter to Mr Markle from Meghan was "not a loving letter, not a generous letter", contrary to how it was presented in the People article.
The barrister continued: "When we come to the very first allegation about cold-shouldering her at the wedding... this allegation is demonstrably false, we say."
Justin Rushbrooke QC, for Meghan, previously described the case as "very straightforward" and said her human rights were "triply engaged" by the publication of part of the letter.
He said: "This was a letter of which extensive contents, about half of it, were first published by the defendant without the consent of the complainant, or even notification."
In her written evidence to the Court of Appeal, Meghan denied she thought it likely that her father would leak the letter, but "merely recognised that this was a possibility".
She said: "To be clear, I did not want any of it to be published, and wanted to ensure that the risk of it being manipulated or misleadingly edited was minimised, were it to be exploited," she continued.
Sir Geoffrey Vos, sitting with Dame Victoria Sharp and Lord Justice Bean, said they will take time to consider their decision and give their ruling at a later date.
