Topic:- Meghan

Markle v/s Associated

Press Case (2019)
Subject:- Media Laws and Ethics
Subject Code:- BMC 1208
By:- Juhi Mehta
 Background of the case
• Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex and wife of Prince Harry sued
Associated National Limited (ANL) on 27th August 2018. In this case,
Meghan Markle was the claimant and the defendant was the
Associated Newspapers Limited (publisher of the tabloid The Mail) .
• She had sued the publisher for bringing out many parts of the letter
which she had written to her father Thomas Markle three months after
her wedding to Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex
• Relationship between Thomas (her father) and Meghan was rocky and
she sent a letter to her father telling him that she cared for him and
asking him not to exploit her relationship with royal family
• After a series of interviews by claimant’s friends, her father
approached The Mail to clear his image and shared the extracts of
letter
 Legal issues raised by
claimant
1) Misuse of private information - Provides unauthorised or accidental access to someone's personal information
2) Copyright claims and infringement - The copyright in the contents of the letter belongs to the person who
wrote the letter - not the recipient.
 Arguments of Defense
• Claimant was a high ranking member of the Royal family and the
public had a legitimate interest in the activities of the family
• Publication of the content of the letter was lawful in the US
• Her knowledge that Thomas was likely to disclose the letter to the
media
• In any case, the defendant argued, that the article published in
People gave a misleading account of her relationship, and the
disclosure of the contents of the letter was justified to protect the
rights and interests of Thomas and the public at large
 Basis of Decision of the Court

•  Court noted that the letter fell within the ambit of

“correspondence” as it contained matter relating to the “family
life” of the claimant and her father. The letter had the claimant’s
feelings about her father’s behaviour, how it affected her, and
her wishes for the future. Such correspondence is presumptively
private in nature
• Regarding the article in Peoples magazine, court said that
Publication of the content of the letter in the Mail articles to be
a disproportionate response
• The Court accepted that as a public figure she must accept a
degree of intrusion that others would not have to bear. The
Court, however, also noted that a public figure does not give up
his/her right to a private life by joining a select group
 Broader implication of Case
• Meghan said in an interview after the victory that case was
"precedent setting," suggesting the judge's ruling had moved
the dial for the rights of those taking on the media in Britain
• It gave a sense that tabloids should exercise caution in such
matters and present a balanced point instead of presenting
evidence in one direction
• However British government took a different view and
Dominic Raab, the justice secretary, has confirmed long-
discussed plans to replace the Human Rights Act, under
which Meghan brought the privacy aspect of her case, with a
British Bill of Rights
 Biblography
• https://www.newsweek.com/meghan-markle-mail-sunday-privacy-lawsuit-leg
acy-dominic-raab-bill-rights-1692318
• https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/the-duchess-of-susse
x-v-associated-press-limited/
• https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/2022/01/an-overview-meghan-markle-v-
the-mail-on-sunday/