AIBU to wonder why everyone is saying ruling wrong in Johnny Depp libel case?

[WorkQuery]

Jury believed that Johnny Depp was violent to Amber Heard. All I keep reading on Facebook etc is comments from people who believe that the ruling was wrong. Why do people assume that it's wrong? Clearly there must have been very strong evidence to support that Depp was abusive to Amber?

Ultimately, Depp was a fuckwit for bringing the case. Anyone who is actually concerned about this case deterring men from reporting DV should make sure they themselves fully understand the ruling and reasons lest they spread misinformation, and become part of the problem. Unfortunately, judging by the state of twitter yesterday, this seems to have eluded some of the people claiming to be worried.

Because most people are just too stupid to understand that The Sun were able to support their accusation that Depp is a wife beater and what you think of Amber Heard or her behaviour is entirely irrelevant to the case.

And I'm going to be honest, I don't think male DV victims being deterred from bringing weak, expensive defamation cases is a significant problem that needs addressing.

@Orcus

And I'm going to be honest, I don't think male DV victims being deterred from bringing weak, expensive defamation cases is a significant problem that needs addressing.

That's the truest thing said here so far

The Sun obviously were able to convince the judge that he was a "wife beater". If there was a reasonable doubt he would have won the libel case. Neither of them came out well but her conduct wasn't on trial. It's not hard to believe he could be violent considering the text he wrote ending with "I can only hope karma kicks in and takes the gift of breath from her".

If there was a reasonable doubt he would have won the libel case

Wrong. This is not a criminal case. The Sun did not have to prove that he assaulted Heard beyond reasonable doubt. They simply had to convince the judge that he did so on the balance of probabilities. In a libel case, a reasonable doubt that he did not assault Heard was nowhere near enough for Depp to win.

Looking at this from a legal perspective, the judgement appears to take a very one-eyed approach to the evidence and in some places simply ignores evidence that contradicts Heard. I am not saying the judge is wrong, but I can see why Depp's lawyers have branded the judgement as perverse and think they have a decent chance of winning an appeal.

To give an example of an apparently one-eyed approach to the evidence, when Heard tells a friend that Depp has assaulted her but tells a doctor that her injuries are self-inflicted, the judge decides that she was telling her friend the truth but lying to the doctor because she didn't want to go public with her allegations of abuse. However, when Depp tells a friend that Heard has assaulted him but tells a doctor that his injuries are self-inflicted, the judge decides that he lied to his friend but told the truth to the doctor and rejects the possibility that Depp didn't want to go public with allegations of abuse.

On ignoring evidence, an obvious example is the assault that allegedly took place the day before Heard appeared on James Corden's show. He reports the fact that Heard's stylist gave evidence saying that she did not have black eyes but then ignores it and doesn't offer any explanation for doing so. He may, of course, be right to ignore this evidence but I would expect to see some justification for this in the judgement.

Just to say again, I am not saying the judge is wrong. He may have good reasons for his conclusions, but those reasons do not appear to be set out in his judgement.

@Fluffybutter

It’s not about “misogyny” , why even tar everyone with that brush just because they don’t agree with the judge ? I read the transcript, (it’s easy to find)and I don’t agree with the decision , I don’t care if people in turn ,don’t agree with me . No one is saying that because she quite clearly was also abusive that it means men who hurt women are innocent in every case . That’s pretty fucked up .

So you are 100% sure that he has never ever laid a hand on her?

To give an example of an apparently one-eyed approach to the evidence, when Heard tells a friend that Depp has assaulted her but tells a doctor that her injuries are self-inflicted, the judge decides that she was telling her friend the truth but lying to the doctor because she didn't want to go public with her allegations of abuse. However, when Depp tells a friend that Heard has assaulted him but tells a doctor that his injuries are self-inflicted, the judge decides that he lied to his friend but told the truth to the doctor and rejects the possibility that Depp didn't want to go public with allegations of abuse.

This approach is seriously lacking in nuance.

A judge must assess every piece of evidence on its own merit. He or she can’t simply decide that because they took a particular approach to one piece of evidence, they must take the same approach to all pieces of evidence.

The judge will have assessed the credibility of the witnesses, the consistency of the testimony of both Depp and Heard, the potential motives and interests at play, and any number of other factors which may have led him to conclude that one party’s evidence was favourable over another’s. Insinuating that the approach is unfair because not all evidence was given the same weight is to fundamentally misunderstand the entire nature of the civil process.

And no, a judgment wouldn’t always include a detailed explanation of why one piece of evidence was preferred over another. That information might be included if the judge felt it particularly relevant, but usually a judgment will only indicate whether evidence was accepted, not the reasons why.

It’s very easy to make insinuations about a process when one doesn’t understand it, but there is a reason it takes a great deal of time, effort and experience to become a judge. People should really try and consider whether they have spotted an obvious angle missed by a senior member of the legal profession or whether, just possibly, they themselves are the one not adequately grasping the reality of the situation.

A judge must assess every piece of evidence on its own merit. He or she can’t simply decide that because they took a particular approach to one piece of evidence, they must take the same approach to all pieces of evidence.

I agree and I didn't say the judge must treat all evidence the same way. As I say, in the instance I quoted, the judge may have good reasons for taking a different approach to Depp's evidence than he does to Heard's.

And no, a judgment wouldn’t always include a detailed explanation of why one piece of evidence was preferred over another

It should at least include some information otherwise the reader may conclude that the judge's decision is simply arbitrary.

I do understand the process. I have read plenty of judgements in my time and have explained some on here, mainly in criminal cases. I repeat that I am not saying that the judge was wrong, but I can see why Depp's lawyers believe an appeal could succeed.

So you are 100% sure that he has never ever laid a hand on her?

Speaking personally, I would not need to be 100% sure that Depp has never assaulted Heard to say that I thought he judge was wrong. If I thought the Sun had failed to prove that, on the balance of probabilities, Depp assaulted Heard on multiple occasions, I would have to say that I thought the judge was wrong. That is very different from saying that I was sure Depp had never assaulted Heard.

Note again that I am not saying that the judge is wrong, nor am I saying he is right. Whilst I can see the transcripts and some of the witness statements, I do not have access to the full trial bundle, nor was I in court so I did not have the same opportunity as the judge to assess the credibility of the witnesses.

Saying it was apparently one-eyed approach doesn't really square with the other points you're making.

Saying it was apparently one-eyed approach doesn't really square with the other points you're making

I disagree. What I am saying is that I can see things that I would expect Schillings to highlight in the appeal. That is different from saying the judge is wrong or that the appeal will succeed.

And to clarify, saying that the judgement appears to take a one-eyed approach is not the same as saying the judge did, in fact, take a one-eyed approach or, even if he did, that such an approach was unjustified. The question the Court of Appeal will consider (assuming the appeal goes ahead) is whether the judge was entitled to take the view he has on the evidence presented.

@prh47bridge

Saying it was apparently one-eyed approach doesn't really square with the other points you're making

I disagree. What I am saying is that I can see things that I would expect Schillings to highlight in the appeal. That is different from saying the judge is wrong or that the appeal will succeed.

That is quite different from saying it's apparently one eyed, though. You can highlight what you perceive to be the points most likely to form the basis of an appeal without going anywhere near as far as you did.

Libel is writing in public something which, if not true, would be unfairly damaging to the person concerned. The defence to libel is therefore that what you wrote was true.

This trial was actually very simple. The Sun called Depp a wife beater. He didn't like it and sued the Sun for libel. By doing so he was saying that he wasn't a wife beater and that the comment was untrue.

The court has heard (no pun intended) evidence to prove that he did beat AH. Therefore the Sun calling him a wife beater was not untrue and therefore there was no libel.

Nothing else - his morals, her morals, his behaviour, her behaviour and anything else to do with their relationship is irrelevant. In law, if what the Sun claimed is true he loses the case. End of.

Many people are also worried that this will also make men even less likely to come forward to report domestic violence committed against them

But that's not what the case was about.

Depp has never reported Heard for DV, has he?

@pinkearedcow

Depp has never reported Heard for DV, has he?

As far as I am aware neither of them has ever reported the other to the authorities.

@pinkearedcow

Many people are also worried that this will also make men even less likely to come forward to report domestic violence committed against them

But that's not what the case was about.

Two men a week aren't being killed by current or ex partner.

Domestic abuse is never ok and obviously male victims need help too - but it's very clearly a largely gendered violence problem.

@FourTeaFallOut

Because most people are just too stupid to understand that The Sun were able to support their accusation that Depp is a wife beater and what you think of Amber Heard or her behaviour is entirely irrelevant to the case.

This

And now we can state the fact that Johnny Depp is a violent wife beater. Something he himself admitted in court.

Whereas no court has found Amber guilty of anything. Which means accusations about her 'behaviour' are potential libel.

It would be interesting to see if JD continues with the other court proceedings or if he will try and settle now he's lost this one.

Do you think he will now try and bring a case of domestic violence against AH?

I think your OP clearly shows why you don't understand.

1. It wasn't a jury.
2. They didn't believe he was violent - that literally wasn't the question asked.
3. There is concrete evidence she was violent to him and that she lied - like her wearing make up to look like a black eye in court in the US (just one example). There's an entirely separate court case against her for that behaviour.

The question asked of the judge was whether or not the Sun (not Amber Heard, the Sun) had damaged his reputation by calling him a wifebeater. The judge decided it hadn't damaged his reputation because the allegations were clearly false and so his fans could easily tell they weren't true and, therefore, his reputation is undamaged. If the judge had read this thread, he may have decided differently.

The judge decided it hadn't damaged his reputation because the allegations were clearly false and so his fans could easily tell they weren't true and, therefore, his reputation is undamaged.

Definitely a 10 for that impressive show of mental gymnastics.

Mr Justice Nicol added: "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.

🙄🙄

And now we can state the fact that Johnny Depp is a violent wife beater. Something he himself admitted in court.

No, he did not. The nearest he came was admitting a clash of heads when trying to restrain Heard who was attacking him.

The judge decided it hadn't damaged his reputation because the allegations were clearly false and so his fans could easily tell they weren't true and, therefore, his reputation is undamaged

Complete rubbish. The judge decided it had damaged his reputation (which the Sun admitted) and specifically found that 12 of the 14 allegations were true.

The state of this thread. Despicable.