Depp v Heard: the Aftermath
The fallout following the defamation trials between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard which concluded on 1st June 2022 in the state of Virginia, has been interesting to say the least.
The Trials
The US defamation trial followed the libel claim Depp issued against News Group Newspapers Ltd in England, in 2020. The claim was issued regarding a headline appearing in The Sun online, in 2018, which referred to Depp as a ‘wife-beater.’ Depp lost the libel claim with the Court finding that the defence of ‘truth’ applied to the publisher. Amber Heard appeared for the defence as a witness and gave evidence of 14 instances in which she said she was assaulted by Depp. The Court accepted her testimony on the balance of probabilities, in accordance with the civil burden of proof.
The US defamation trial on the other hand, found the exact opposite. This second claim was issued by Depp against Amber Heard personally, regarding an op-ed written by her and published in the Washington Post in 2018. The verdict was decided by a civil jury and found that Heard had made maliciously false statements about Depp. i.e. that Heard had lied.
Interestingly, whilst The Sun article had mentioned Depp by name, there was no mention of Depp personally in the Post article. In the facts of the US case, it was asserted that the article could only have referred to Depp, given the nature of Heard’s comments about the domestic abuse she had allegedly suffered.
Reactions
A number of reactions followed with Heard and Depp’s supporters both laying claim to the verdict. Depp’s supporters felt that an innocent man, wrongfully accused by a vindictive woman, was vindicated. They also felt that as a male survivor of domestic abuse, he shined a light on men also suffering domestic abuse when the stories heard most often, are of female survivors being abused at the hands of men. Heard’s supporters on the other hand, felt that yet another woman was denied justice in the face of an established male Hollywood icon as her opponent, thereby cementing the notion of it being ‘a man’s world’ even with Heard’s considerable fame and star power.
What did we learn?
From a legal perspective, nothing has actually been settled. The defamation trials themselves each found opposite conclusions to the other. The English trial verdict was delivered by a judge only, heard in open court but not televised (with limited social media commentary). The US trial verdict was delivered by a civil jury which was not sequestered throughout the trial and therefore had full exposure to the ensuing media circus, both online and offline. How far this influenced the jury is difficult to say, although it would be reasonable to suggest that the jury may well have heard or seen at least some of this external commentary and considered it during their deliberations, albeit subconsciously. In addition, the US trial was televised with a global audience tuning in, therefore allowing a considerable amount of people room to posit arguments and engage in their own deliberations.
What should have happened?
Whether or not Depp abused Heard, or as he alleged in some instances, whether Heard abused Depp, has still not been settled. In my opinion, a defamation trial in either country, was entirely the wrong forum to explore these allegations. Domestic abuse, regardless of victim or perpetrator, is an insidious and often unnoticed harm which can cause complete and utter destruction of those experiencing it.
On the face of it, both trials had enough personal testimony from both actors to suggest that abuse of some form happened between them. Whether it was one sided or experienced both ways is a question for another day. The purpose of the defamation trials was to establish whether the specific statements made were defamatory or not. A key element of a defamatory statement is its falsity; i.e. that it is a lie which has been published. Once a verdict has been reached about the statement, that’s it. Trial over.
Whilst the English trial allowed some room for Heard’s testimony of 14 instances of abuse which the Court accepted, I do not believe either Court heard the full extent of the alleged abuse. In my opinion, the best place to explore whether or not abuse occurred, to what extent it occurred and the details of any such instances, would have been a criminal trial. With a higher burden of proof of ‘beyond reasonable doubt,’ I believe a criminal trial would have held more weight in its conclusions, in light of the nature of the allegations.
It is an entirely different matter as to whether a criminal trial will ever take place. A primary component in either jurisdiction would be a criminal complaint and as researchers in the field of domestic abuse will attest, survivors are often reluctant to file a police complaint for any number of reasons. The overriding feeling I have, following both trials, is that as much as we have been told, there is far more which we do not know and as ever, I am reluctant to draw a firm conclusion without possessing all the facts.