[ad_1]
Referring to the apology that Meghan made on Wednesday after allegedly misleading the courts over her collaboration with the authors of Finding Freedom women’s rights Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu said the Duchess was right to apologise. Dr Mos-Shogbamimu added that it makes “zero difference” to the privacy claim that she won. Writing in the Independent she said: “The question in the latest faux outrage about Meghan is not whether she loses credibility for not informing the High Court that her former comms secretary, Jason Knauf, provided some information for the unauthorised biography, Finding Freedom, to authors Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand, with her knowledge.
“No, the only question is whether this would have made a difference to the outcome of the privacy claim she won against Associated Newspapers Limited, publisher of the Mail on Sunday.
“The fact is it should make zero difference.”
Dr Mos-Shogbamimu added: “Meghan’s successful privacy claim against Associated Newspapers Ltd was not predicated on the collaboration, if any, with the authors of Finding Freedom but whether or not Associated Newspapers Ltd had breached her right to privacy by publishing parts of her letter to her father.
“The Court’s ruling that publishing her private letter was ‘excessive’ and ‘unlawful’ is the centrepiece of her win.
“So this disclosure about Finding Freedom is not critical, I believe.”
The news comes after Associated Newspapers made an appeal against a UK High Court ruling that said it breached Meghan’s privacy by publishing a letter she wrote to her father.
The newspaper group, that publishes the Mail Online, Daily Mail and the Mail of Sunday, argued that the Duchess of Sussex had written the letter beleiving it would find its way into the public realm.
The publishers are relying on the testimony of Meghan’s former communications advisor, Jason Knauf, to assist in their appeal.
READ MORE: Meghan Markle and Prince Harry need ‘image makeover’ in US
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]
