BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

Johnny Depp Loses His London Libel Trial, And Faces A Rough Road Back From Being Named By A London Tabloid As An Abusive Spouse

This article is more than 3 years old.

Johnny Depp has lost his London libel trial against the Rupert-Murdoch-owned London tabloid the Sun and its parent company, News Group Newspapers, for naming him a "wife-beater" in a 2018 article and for suggesting that he be fired from the JK Rowling/Warner Brothers Fantastic Beasts film franchise. The loss of the lawsuit will have greater import than just in this proceeding, in that the Sun's legal representatives gambled that an appearance as a witness by Depp's ex-wife, Amber Heard, would work to her, and their, favor.

It was a spectacular legal gamble. But the larger import of the British court's verdict will come as a welcome boost to Ms. Heard's American legal team, as they are engaged to field Mr. Depp's suit of his ex-wife for a Washington Post op-ed she penned as an alleged victim of domestic violence. The American legal team for Ms. Heard expressed a sort of stately appreciation for the verdict, stating that they looked forward to defending Ms. Heard and her first amendment rights. Johnny Depp's British legal team, from the white-shoe law firm of Schillings, predictably expressed dismay, and, surprisingly, hinted at an appeal.

“This decision is as perverse as it is bewildering," Jenny Afia, of Schillings, said. "Most troubling is the judge’s reliance on the testimony of Amber Heard, and corresponding disregard of the mountain of counter-evidence from police officers, medical practitioners, her own former assistant, other unchallenged witnesses and an array of documentary evidence which completely undermined the allegations, point by point. All of this was overlooked. The judgment is so flawed that it would be ridiculous for Mr Depp not to appeal this decision.”

In his opinion, the judge said: "The claimant has not succeeded in his action for libel. Although he has proved the necessary elements of his cause of action in libel, the defendants have shown that what they published in the meaning which I have held the words to bear was substantially true. I have reached these conclusions having examined in detail the 14 incidents on which the defendants rely as well as the overarching considerations which the claimant submitted I should take into account."

As has been meticulously and spectacularly reported when the couple took the stand against each other over the seemingly Sisyphean 16-day trial, Ms. Heard's and Depp's testimonies were nothing short of explosive. All was laid bare by both sides, in the hope of winning the judge's sympathy. The embattled Depp is one of our most gifted actors and storytellers — in fact, that is the main reasons that producers and directors keep pounding on the man for big roles: He knows how to incorporate a character, no matter how fantastical, and how to bring that character's story to life. It has seemed for a long while as if Depp's vividly theatrical personal life, lived right on his idol Hunter S. Thompson's most frangible edge, very much including his substance abuse, would consume him.

Despite this judgement, that doesn't seem to have happened quite yet. It has, also in the interim, been a pleasure for his millions of fans to watch him begin his rebound from Disney's unceremonious and questionable hard drop from his iconic portrayal of the epically disorganized and globally-beloved Captain Jack Sparrow by assuming the role of JK Rowling's deeply-riven wizard villain Grindelwald in Warner's Fantastic Beasts franchise. Put simply, Fantastic Beasts absolutely needs a tragic villain at its core, and, right now, there are very few actors on earth who can play, as well as the talented Mr. Depp, a grand, nuanced, Faustian figure grappling with his own demons while attempting to take over the (wizarding) world.

Depp is currently filming Fantastic Beasts' third installment in Britain, where, as the world knows, he took arguably the world's most spectacular post-first-Covid-wave summer break to appear as a witness in this civil action for libel against Rupert Murdoch's Sun, its editor Dan Wootten. Mr. Wootten, in particular, will be breathing a sigh of relief.

The court proceeding was epic in multiple ways, not least because Murdoch's take-no-prisoners barristers put Depp's ex-wife Amber Heard on the stand, and Depp matched that to take the stand to subject himself to minute, explosively revealing cross-examination by the defendants' team — a millimeter-by-millimeter anatomy of a rocky marriage. The volume of excruciating details was staggering — the daily, grisly, emotionally-laden testimony and the recordings of their arguments lent the proceeding a dramatic air — as if the characters in Tennessee Williams' Cat On A Hot Tin Roof had been seconded to a courtroom and had told their lawyers to hash it out.

The London tabloids — including, ironically, the Sun itself, covering its own trial along with every other press outlet around the orb —made millions over weeks of reporting the blow-by-blow of Ms. Heard's and Depp's appearances. The coverage of the unsavory revelations was so great, and the unsavory revelations were so great in number, that it became difficult to remember that the failed Depp/Heard marriage was not, itself, on trial, nor was Depp himself.

And yet, all of that was very much on trial in London: Under British law, the burden of proof in libel cases rests with the defendant, giving defendants great advantage in bringing libel actions. In this case, according to the evidence, the Sun's star witness was reportedly responsible for aggressions of her own during the turbulent marriage — Ms. Heard was recorded in one argument chiding Depp for even raising for discussion an instance of her own physical abuse of him.

Despite all that, Depp did not win this round in his overarching attempt to escape the strong statement of wife-beating made by the Sun. Put another way, today's verdict means that stating such a thing about Depp is a — in Britain anyway — legally tested precedent now. Any tabloid or organ of the press can have at it, and they will, given that Depp is a huge figure in Britain and in essentially British, or British-American films such as the Pirates and Fantastic Beasts franchises. He stands to lose a quotient of support, which is to say, in film studios' executive suites. Although Depp remained un-named in Heard's Washington Post op-ed, it was crystal clear to the editors of the paper and, arguably, to most readers, that the identity of the person Ms. Heard who was highly likely to have (reportedly) abused her was, in fact, Depp.

Unclear is what real, material affect this will have on next year's Depp/Heard lawsuit (and counter-suit from Ms. Heard) as the former comes to trial in Virginia. For the moment, Depp's concerted effort to climb out from under the white-hot branding of him as a spousal abuser has been dealt a big blow.