Depp loses UK libel case on 'wife beater' claims | Inquirer Entertainment
Close  

Depp loses UK libel case on ‘wife beater’ claims

/ 10:26 PM November 02, 2020
Depp loses UK libel case on 'wife beater' claims

(FILES) In this file photo taken on July 17, 2020, US actor Johnny Depp arrives to attend on day nine of his libel trial against News Group Newspapers (NGN), at the High Court in London, on July 17, 2020. – Hollywood star Johnny Depp will learn on November 2, 2020, if he has won his libel lawsuit against British newspaper The Sun for branding him a “wife-beater” in a case that laid bare his chaotic lifestyle. Judge Andrew Nicol will deliver his long-awaited verdict at 1000 GMT, after three weeks of rancorous testimony at the High Court in London that included claims of drug abuse and domestic violence. The “Pirates of the Caribbean” actor sued the tabloid’s publisher News Group Newspapers (NGN) and the author of the article over claims he was violent to ex-wife Amber Heard during their volatile two-year marriage. (Photo by Tolga AKMEN / AFP)

LONDON Hollywood star Johnny Depp on Monday lost a libel lawsuit against British newspaper The Sun for branding him a “wife-beater” in a case that laid bare his chaotic battle with drink and drugs and shattered his global reputation.

Judge Andrew Nicol dismissed the 57-year-old “Pirates of the Caribbean” star’s claim at the High Court in London, saying the article had been proven to be “substantially true.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The Sun welcomed the ruling, as did campaigners against violence towards women, saying it had “stood up and campaigned for the victims of domestic violence for over 20 years.”

“Domestic abuse victims must never be silenced and we thank the judge for his careful consideration and thank Amber Heard for her courage in giving evidence to the court,” it added.

FEATURED STORIES

But Depp’s lawyers called the judgment “as perverse as it is bewildering,” arguing the court had disregarded a “mountain of counter-evidence” that “completely undermined” the claims.

“The judgment is so flawed that it would be ridiculous for Mr. Depp not to appeal this decision,” said Jenny Afia, partner at law firm Schillings.

Depp sued the tabloid’s publishers News Group Newspapers Ltd (NGN) and the author of the article over claims he was violent to actress and model Heard, 34, during their volatile two-year marriage.

The case was dubbed “the biggest English libel trial of the 21st century” and the legal odds had appeared to be stacked in Depp’s favor.

England’s ancient defamation law puts the burden of proof on the media and remains one of the strictest in the Western world.

But NGN relied on the defense of truth, arguing it had a valid basis for the 2018 story by detailing 14 alleged instances of Depp abusing Heard.

The judge said he found 12 of the alleged incidents did occur.

ADVERTISEMENT

‘Showbiz fail’

Legal experts said Depp felt he had no choice but to sue, as, in the current era, accusations of domestic violence would do more damage to his career than details of his substance abuse.

Lawyer Mark Stephens, who specializes in reputation management, said the ruling was “immensely damaging” for Depp, not just because the judge ruled he was a wife-beater.

Despite not having any convictions for drugs, he could now find it hard to secure work in some countries with tough visa entry requirements, he added.

He could yet salvage his career by seeking help but film companies could come under pressure if they keep working with him, he said.

The contested article had questioned whether author JK Rowling could be “‘genuinely happy’ casting wife-beater Johnny Depp” in the Harry Potter franchise’s Fantastic Beasts spin-off.

Public relations specialist Mark Borkowski said Depp’s trademark edginess had taken an “ugly and abusive” turn, calling the case “one of the biggest showbiz fails for a long time.”

Depp loses UK libel case on 'wife beater' claims

This November 3, 2011, file photo shows U.S. actors Johnny Depp (L) and Amber Heard arrive for the European premiere of their film, “The Rum Diary,” in London. Image: AP File/Joel Ryan

Excruciating detail

The 16 days of proceedings in July, which both parties attended, exposed the couple’s troubled relationship in excruciatingly minute detail.

Depp vehemently rejected accusations he hurt Heard while battling a drug addiction over a three-year span that ended with her 2016 decision to get a restraining order and file for divorce.

He and his legal team branded Heard a manipulative fantasist who made up the allegations for money and personal fame to destroy his life.

His former partners, the actress Winona Ryder and Vanessa Paradis, the French singer, both said he was “kind” and “non-violent.”

But the judge rejected the characterizations of Heard as a “gold-digger” who “constructed a hoax” as an “insurance policy.”

Under days of withering cross-examination, the star admitted to only hazily remembering some events because he was high on drugs.

Heard, for her part, said she loved the sober Depp but he became a “monster” after days-long binges on powerful prescription and other drugs.

Depp is also suing Heard in a separate case in the United States for an article she wrote in the Washington Post, which he said implied he was violent towards her.

The hottest entertainment news straight to your inbox

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.
Read Next
Don't miss out on the latest news and information.

Subscribe to INQUIRER PLUS to get access to The Philippine Daily Inquirer & other 70+ titles, share up to 5 gadgets, listen to the news, download as early as 4am & share articles on social media. Call 896 6000.

TAGS: Abuse, Amber Heard, Britain, Celebrity, Court, domestic abuse, domestic violence, Holly wood, Johnny Depp, Libel, Media, The Sun, UK, US, wife-beater, Women
For feedback, complaints, or inquiries, contact us.

Subscribe to our entertainment news

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and
acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.



© Copyright 1997-2022 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more, please click this link.