LONDON – English law forbids publishing lurid allegations in divorce cases – an inconvenient but not insurmountable impediment to splashing the latest dispatches from the war of the McCartneys.
The leak of a document bristling with allegations of physical and emotional cruelty by Paul McCartney marked a low point in Britain’s most sensational marital bust-up since Prince Charles and Princess Diana parted ways a decade ago.
The accusations against the former Beatle include drug use, drunkenness, callousness about his wife’s amputated leg, indifference to her pain and even an assault with a broken wine glass.
Sensational stuff, but aside from the Daily Mail, most of Britain’s normally scandal-hungry press waited hours to jump in. There were fears about the legal consequences of repeating allegations of criminal acts and about violating privacy rights.
A law dating from 1926 that forbids publication of details in divorce cases, uncertainty about whether it really was a court document apparently drafted by Heather Mills McCartney’s lawyers and the mystery of who leaked it, ultimately only delayed publication.
“The old law had reached the end of its useful life. But it never foresaw this,” said Duncan Lamont a media specialist at the law firm Charles Russell in London.
To obtain an amicable divorce, which the couple initially said they were seeking, Mills McCartney need only have filed a brief response to McCartney’s petition alleging an irretrievable breakdown.
The only purpose for lodging such an extensive response “would be to leak it,” Lamont said, adding that Mills McCartney and her legal team could easily have obtained an injunction to block publication. The law forbids publication of court proceedings, which are conducted in private.
Another lawyer was baffled by the leaker’s motive in a divorce the couple originally blamed on “constant intrusion into our private lives.”
“Why are we finding these unbelievably apocalyptic allegations?” asked divorce lawyer Vanessa Lloyd, adding: “Nobody really understands quite why it was done in this fashion.”
The document was faxed to the press room at the Royal Court of Justice on Tuesday.
While other media hesitated, The Daily Mail jumped on the story, splashing it the next day on page one.
But then, the Mail reported last month that something like this was coming – “bombshell stuff,” according to a “friend” of Mills McCartney.
“Rest assured, if all goes to plan, what has happened in this marriage will not remain secret. The allegations will see the light of day,” the “friend” was quoted as saying in the Sept. 27 story.
The McCartney divorce already had echoes of the royal split. He hired Prince Charles’ lawyer, Fiona Shackleton; she opted for Di’s lawyer, Anthony Julius.
Julius’ law firm, Mishcon de Reya, said she “stands by everything that has been filed at court on her behalf.”
McCartney issued a statement saying he would “very much like to respond publicly” but would leave it to the courts.
Lamont said that almost all couples are eager to keep their disputes out of the public eye. Petitions and other records are sealed and destroyed after six years, for the protection of the children, he said.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
