Meghan's former aide gave evidence against her as he 'regretted' it when she won without trial

Meghan Markle won her privacy case against a newspaper for publishing extracts of her letter to her estranged father Thomas Markle in February this year, after her former communications secretary Jason Knauf denied co-writing the letter and tipped the case in her favour. However, she recently faced a major setback as the case was being heard at the Court of Appeal when Knauf revealed several other aspects about the letter.

The former aide revealed in his witness statement to the Court of Appeal that Meghan had suspicions her father would leak the letter to the media and kept that in mind while drafting it. He also confirmed that he gave a detailed briefing to "Finding Freedom" authors on her instructions, contradicting her previous claims that she had no involvement in the flattering biography about her and Prince Harry.

Knauf, who had refused to participate in the lawsuit the last time, said he changed his mind after the former actress won it with a summary judgement and without any trial. Keith Mathieson, a solicitor representing the defendants, told the Court of Appeal in a written statement that Knauf "regretted" not giving evidence the last time he was asked, reports Mail Online.

Mathieson claimed that a "confidential source" told the defendants in July this year that "Mr. Knauf now regretted not providing a witness statement to us." He said, "It did indeed turn out that, since the summary judgment had deprived Mr. Knauf of the opportunity to provide evidence at a trial, he now wished to provide a witness statement to the parties so that his evidence could be considered as part of the appeal."

Mathieson described Knauf, who is currently working for Meghan's in-laws Prince William and Kate Middleton, as a "senior and trusted member of the royal household staff," adding that his witness statement was "measured in tone" and "honest and credible". He noted that Knauf had been "careful not to include evidence of matters beyond his own personal knowledge".

"Given the high profile nature of this litigation and the likelihood of his evidence (if admitted) being widely reported, as well as the position he holds, it is hardly conceivable that he would say anything he did not believe to be true," Mathieson said.