(UTV | COLOMBO) – The Duchess of Sussex has apologised to a court for forgetting she asked a senior aide to brief the authors of a biography about her.
She denied intentionally misleading the High Court after an appeal heard her former spokesman provided information to the authors of Finding Freedom.
Jason Knauf told a court Meghan gave him briefing points to share with them.
Associated Newspapers is appealing against a ruling over publishing a letter from the duchess to her father.
Meghan, 40, won her case against the publisher of the Mail on Sunday earlier this year, when the High Court ruled its publication of the letter was unlawful.
Associated Newspapers’ legal team are seeking to overturn this judgement at the Court of Appeal, disputing that this was simply a private and personal letter – and have argued that it was crafted with the “possibility of public consumption” in mind.
A spokesman for the Sussexes had previously said the couple “did not contribute” to the Finding Freedom biography, written by Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand.
But in new evidence heard on Wednesday, Mr Knauf, the couple’s former communications secretary, said the book was “discussed on a routine basis” and “discussed directly 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 briefing points to share with them, including information on how she had “very minimal contact” with her half-siblings during her childhood.
Mr Knauf’s evidence also included emails with the Duke of Sussex, discussing the proposed meeting with the authors and the need to conceal any involvement by Prince Harry and Meghan.
The former aide said Prince Harry 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 a witness statement to the court the duchess said she accepted that her aide did provide information to the authors of the book with her knowledge but 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,” she said.
“I had absolutely no wish or intention to mislead the defendant or the court.”
