Entertainment Celebrity Royal Meghan’s red carpet return – after apology to British court
Updated:
Live

Meghan’s red carpet return – after apology to British court

Meghan Markle newspaper letter
A lawyer for a British newspaper publisher has argued the Duchess of Sussex knew her letter may leak. Photo: AAP
Share
Twitter Facebook Reddit Pinterest Email
Live

The Duchess of Sussex has apologised for misleading a court over her recollection of information given by her aides to the authors of an unauthorised biography about her and her husband.

Meghan Markle, 40, sued the publisher of The Mail On Sunday, Associated Newspapers, over five articles that reproduced parts of a “personal and private” letter sent to her father, Thomas Markle, in August 2018.

The High Court ruled earlier this year that publication of the letter was unlawful, entering summary judgment for Meghan and avoiding the need for a trial.

The apology came just hours before Meghan and husband Prince Harry returned to the red carpet. They joined other high-profile attendees at the 2021 Salute to Freedom Gala in New York City on Wednesday (local time).

The event honours military service, and Harry donned many of his medals along with his tuxedo for the occasion.

Meghan wore a red gown by Carolina Herrera, which had a plunging neckline, flowing train, and a fitted waist. She finished the look with burgundy satin pumps by Giuseppe Zanotti – and a red poppy flower pin in honour of Britain’s Remembrance Day (the duke had one of those too).

meghan harry new york
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex on the red carpet in New York. Photo: Getty

Back in London, Associated Newspapers is challenging February’s High Court ruling at the Court of Appeal, arguing the case should go to a trial on Meghan’s claims including breach of privacy and copyright.

Lawyers for the publisher say the duchess wrote the letter in such a way that it would “pull at the heartstrings” if it were leaked to the public.

Andrew Caldecott, for Associated Newspapers, said the letter was “crafted with readership by the public in mind,” and Meghan “was happy for the public to read it if Mr Markle were to leak it”.

In her evidence, the duchess denied she wanted the letter published but hoped to minimise “the risk of it being manipulated or misleadingly edited”.

The court heard this week Meghan and her husband Prince Harry’s former communications secretary Jason Knauf provided information to the authors of the biography Finding Freedom by Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand.

In a witness statement, Mr Knauf said the book was “discussed on a routine basis” with the duchess “multiple times in person and over email”.

He also discussed planning a meeting with the authors to provide background information and said Meghan had given him several briefing points to share with them, including information on how she had “very minimal contact” with her half-siblings during her childhood.

Emails showed Mr Knauf had also contacted Harry to discuss the book and to say he would meet the authors.

According to the former aide, the duke replied: “I totally agree that we have to be able to say we didn’t have anything to do with it.

“Equally, you giving the right context and background to them would help get some truths out there.”

In her witness statement, made public on Wednesday (British time), Meghan apologised for misleading the court about whether Mr Knauf provided information to the authors of the biography.

“I accept that Mr Knauf did provide some information to the authors for the book and that he did so with my knowledge, for a meeting that he planned for with the authors in his capacity as communications secretary,” she said.

“The extent of the information he shared is unknown to me.

“When I approved the passage … I did not have the benefit of seeing these emails and I apologise to the court for the fact that I had not remembered these exchanges at the time.

“I had absolutely no wish or intention to mislead the defendant or the court.”

Meghan added she would have been “more than happy” to refer to the exchanges with Mr Knauf if she had been aware of them at the time, adding they are “a far cry from the very detailed personal information that the defendant alleges that I wanted or permitted to put into the public domain”.

-with AAP