- Angela Levin weighed in on Meghan Markle’s win in privacy case against Associated Newspapers on Thursday
- The author of “Harry: A Biography of a Prince” said she was “disappointed” by the decision
- She claimed the judges focused on the quantity of Markle’s letter the Mail on Sunday published, but dismissed the Duchess’ alleged perjury
A royal biographer has slammed the latest decision in Meghan Markle’s long legal battle with the editor of the Mail on Sunday.
Prince Harry journalist and biographer Angela Levin weighed in on the Duchess of Sussex’s big legal victory in her privacy and copyright infringement case against Associated Newspapers on Thursday.
The British media company was trying to overturn a February ruling which considered it had violated Markle’s privacy by publishing a letter she wrote to her father, Thomas. But the London Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, calling the Duchess’ letter “matters of personal, private and not of legitimate public interest”.
In an interview with TalkRadioMike Graham, author of “Harry: A Biography of a Prince,” said she was “disappointed” with the decision, saying the judges were only focusing on the quantity of the Markle Mail on Sunday letter released and not on the Duchess’ alleged perjury.
“I am very disappointed with the judges of the court of appeal because they [more importance on] the number of words you used in a letter … than telling untruths about what happened or some kind of forgetfulness about it “, Levin noted.
The author of “Diana’s Babies” went on to say that she did not accept Markle’s statement that the Duchess had forgotten the emails she had exchanged with an assistant who was going to inform the authors of “Finding Freedom. “, an unauthorized biography on her and Prince Harry.
The Mail on Sunday editor had argued that Markle wrote her letter to her father knowing it might be published and had made private information public by cooperating with the authors. But in Thursday’s ruling, a judge said Markle forgetting about his correspondence with former communications secretary Jason Knauf “was an unfortunate oversight on his part at best but was not about the issues.”
Levin argued that it was unlikely that a person with “a mind as sharp and brilliant as Meghan’s” would forget about her conversation with her assistant.
The biographer also noted that 585 of the 1,250 words in the letter to the Duchess ‘estranged father had been reposted in five Mail on Sunday articles in an attempt to counter unflattering reports of Thomas’ behavior. Judges said on Thursday that while it might have been proportionate to publish a very small part of the letter for this purpose, it was not necessary to publish half of the letter’s content.
“So if they only used 300 words, [Meghan] would have lost the case. But it’s reduced to the number of words, “Levin continued.” I think the moral side is more important than counting words. “
Some Twitter users have shared Levin’s take on Markle’s legal victory.
“Perjury is a felony, under UK (and US) law, and yet the basis for Meghan Markle’s statements in court, which were repeatedly amended until she finally had to s ‘apologizing for’ forgetting ‘has never been thoroughly questioned. His perjury, lies and crimes have been covered up, ”one person alleged.
“Meghan Markle did not win. Her reputation is [poo emoji]. She was exposed as a liar ready to deceive and perjure herself, “said another. claims.
“How can anyone have a ‘memory gap’ in such a critical area of a high-profile court case and expect to get away with it? Surely a perjurer?” a third user claims.
But Sussex supporters were happy with the move, saying the publisher ultimately violated Markle’s privacy and violated his copyright.
“Tell Angela the people she and the media are abusing are delighted! Copyright laws are there to protect people from the media,” one person commented.
“The ‘evidence’ given by Knauf was irrelevant, and the judge said [it] only served to prove that she did not want the letter to be public. It was a simple copyright matter. Angela doesn’t like it because it’s harder to be a gossip dealer “, second Twitter user wrote.
“It’s all about copyright and privacy, Angie !!” a third wrote.
Thursday’s ruling means the case will not go to trial and Markle will receive substantial financial damage from Associated Newspapers, along with a public apology printed on the front page of Mail on Sunday and the homepage of Mail Online.
In a statement Thursday, Markle said her legal victory was not only for her but also for “all those who have ever been afraid to stand up for what is right”.
“While this victory sets a precedent, what matters most is that we are now collectively brave enough to reshape a tabloid industry that conditions people to be cruel and profits from the lies and the pain they create. “, continued the Duchess of Sussex.