[ad_1]
Meghan Markle, 40, has apologised for misleading the court over her recollection of the information given by her aides to the authors of an unauthorised biography about her and her husband. The Duchess of Sussex sued the publisher of The Mail On Sunday, Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), over five articles that reproduced parts of a “personal and private” letter sent to her father Thomas Markle, 77, in August 2018. Discussing the latest update, columnist Ayesha Hazarika has claimed it was a “really bad thing”.
Speaking to Jeremy Vine On 5, Ms Hazarika said: “I have often defended Meghan Markle but I do think this is pretty bad to have not disclosed this quite important piece of information to the court.
“I think that’s a really bad things to have done.
“She has apologised, let’s see how this affects the case.”
The High Court ruled earlier this year that ANL’s publication of Meghan’s letter to her father was unlawful, entering summary judgment for Meghan and avoiding the need for a trial.
READ MORE: Thomas Markle slams Meghan as ‘truth’ coming out ‘Thank god for Jason’
But ANL is challenging that ruling at the Court of Appeal, arguing the case should go to a trial on Meghan’s claims including breach of privacy and copyright.
The court heard this week that Meghan and Harry’s former communications secretary Jason Knauf provided information to the authors of Finding Freedom by Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand.
In a witness statement, Mr Knauf said the book was “discussed on a routine basis”, which was “discussed directly with the duchess multiple times in person and over email”.
Mr Knauf 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.
She said: “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.
“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.”
[ad_2]
