Meghan Markle's team 'leaked High Court privacy row to Finding Freedom author Omid Scobie', bombshell docs claim

MEGHAN Markle's team leaked details of the High Court privacy row to Finding Freedom author Omid Scobie, bombshell documents claimed today.

The Duchess of Sussex is suing Associated Newspapers (ANL), the publisher of the Mail on Sunday, after a “private” letter she sent to her estranged father Thomas Markle, 76, was revealed.

⚠️Read our Meghan and Harry blog for the latest news on the Royal couple.

The 39-year-old claims publishing the letter was an “invasion of her privacy” but ANL says its existence was already in the public domain after being discussed in an anonymous interview given by five of her pals to People Magazine.

Mr Justice Warby today ruled the identities of Meghan’s friends must remain confidential “in the interests of justice” – saying the decision had been made “for the time being”.

However, in a judgment released today, he said there was evidence that Meghan's side had "briefed the press" about the initial application to stop her friends from being publicly named during the High Court case.

Mr Justice Warby said reporter Mr Scobie – who is set to release a biography about the couple next week – tweeted about the application just 58 minutes after they were filed.

The latest in the High Court Battle today saw:

• Meghan Markle's five friends WILL stay anonymous after speaking to US magazine People
• The Duchess said she was 'happy' with the judge's decision
• A judge slammed both Meghan Markle and the publishers of the Mail on Sunday for their "tit-for-tat" battle and their "eagerness" to play out the dispute in public
• Mr Justice Warby said he wanted to case to now "move forward at a greater pace"

In the 20-page document, Mr Justice Warby said the application to stop the naming of Meghan's five friends was filed at 8.32am, with Mr Scobie tweeting the file's cover page at 9.30am on July 9.

The tweet said: "Lawyers for Duchess Meghan have filed a court order to stop the Mail from printing the names of five confidential potential witnesses.

"A close source says, '[This] is only being done so the Mail can target five innocent women through the pages of its newspapers and its website'."

Mr Justice Warby said in his judgment: "The inference invited is that he had been provided with a copy by representatives of the claimant.

"This seems very likely."

It comes just days before Finding Freedom is expected to be released, with the biography widely said to be telling the side of Meghan and Prince Harry amid so-called Megxit.

Excerpts from the book have already revealed sensational details including that Prince Harry was the first one to say "I love you", while detailing messages that Meghan sent her estranged father Thomas Markle in the lead up to her wedding.

However, a spokesperson for the couple insisted they had not been involved in the book.

They said in a statement: "The Duke and Duchess of Sussex were not interviewed and did not contribute to Finding Freedom.

"This book is based on the authors' own experiences as members of the royal press corps and their own independent reporting."

Detailed excerpts from the book also revealed Meghan's heartache over her father before her wedding to Prince Harry – saying she had sent a "barrage" of voicemails and messages to the 76-year-old.

The book stated: "The night before the wedding, she sent her father one last text. He did not reply.

“Sitting in a bath later that night, FaceTiming with a friend, the bride-to-be said she had left her dad a final message, adding: ‘I can’t sit up all night just pressing send’."

Today's High Court ruling is the latest in the battle between Meghan Markle and the publishers of the Mail on Sunday, with the judge today saying he now wanted to "move forward" at a greater pace.

A date for the trial itself is yet to be set.

Meghan’s lawyers last week applied for the Duchess’ friends to remain anonymous as part of the proceedings – something the paper’s legal team has opposed.

The 39-year-old had said her friends gave the interview without her knowledge, and denies a claim made by ANL that she “caused or permitted” the People article to be published.

And Mr Justice Warby today said the five friends should remain anonymous for now, saying: "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.”

He then said preparations for the trial – which has not yet had a date set – should now “move forward at a greater pace”.

And a source close to Meghan’s legal team today said: “The Duchess felt it was necessary to take this step to try and protect her friends—as any of us would—and we’re glad this was clear.

“We are happy that the Judge has agreed to protect these five individuals.”

In a written submission to the court, Justin Rushbrooke QC, representing the Duchess, said it would be “cruel irony” for the five friends – referred to as A to E – to be identified in the privacy case.

The High Court heard last week that Friend B had been the ringleader pal who “orchestrated” the explosive magazine interview defending the Duchess.

And in a witness statement to the court, Friend C said she would suffer “intrusion into family life” if she was identified.

In the article published by People in February of last year, the friends spoke out against the bullying Meghan said she has faced, and have only been identified in confidential court documents.

However, Antony White QC, acting for ANL, said the unnamed friends are “important potential witnesses on a key issue”.

“Reporting these matters without referring to names would be a heavy curtailment of the media’s and the defendant’s entitlement to report this case and the public’s right to know about it,” he said.

“No friend’s oral evidence could be fully and properly reported because full reporting might identify her, especially as there has already been media speculation as to their identities.”

ANL, publisher of the Mail on Sunday and MailOnline, won the first skirmish in the legal action on May 1, when Mr Justice Warby struck out parts of Meghan’s claim.

This included allegations that the publisher acted “dishonestly” by leaving out certain passages of the letter.

Court papers have since shown Meghan has agreed to pay ANL’s £67,888 costs for that hearing in full.

Meghan is suing ANL over five articles, two in the MoS and three on MailOnline, which were published in February 2019 and reproduced parts of a handwritten letter she sent to her father in August 2018.

Source: Read Full Article