She’s got her way, full front page spread in daily mail I cannot believe it
Mail on Sunday sorry
I’m a lawyer (not in privacy/human rights) but I still can’t understand how the judge came to the decision to award Smeggy summary judgment based on the particular facts of that case. How could he definitively decide about MM’s legitimate expectation of privacy without (a) hearing evidence from the Palace staff about the degree of input into the letter (b) hearing evidence from the 5 ‘People friends’ about what Smeggy told them about the letter (c) hearing evidence from Thomas Markle about his legitimate reasons for disclosing the letter to the press and, most importantly (d) hearing cross-examination of MM about why she shared the letter with staff and her friends, why she wrote it in calligraphy (because she knew it would get published), why it is written to emphasise how amazing she is (because she knew it would get published) and why she thought her father would keep it private when the whole point of the letter was about how her father couldn’t keep away from the press.
Why shouldn’t her father give a letter addressed to him to the press if he wants to?? This is not a normal situation of a private citizen sending a letter to another private citizen, there is far more to it, and not to acknowledge that in the judgment seems really odd, as does refusing leave to appeal and this bullshit about having to print a massive retraction to Smeggy on the front page. None of it makes sense, it feels like someone is pulling strings behind the scenes. I really hope the MoS do seek leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal and get it, so that this case can be dealt with properly, I for one would love to see Smeggy squirming in the witness box.
Also, the letter is basically written to say to her father “we’re done” and to cut him off. Lovely. You can see why Smeggy would take exception to someone using the press to artificially bolster their own image and make a load of cash at the expense of their family. One act of compassion at a time, eh?