Neutral Citation Number: [2020] EWHC 2911 (QB) Case No: QB-2018-006323 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 02/11/2020 Before : MR JUSTICE NICOL --------------------- Between : John Christopher Depp II Claimant - and - (1) News Group Newspapers Ltd. Defendants (2) Dan Wootton -------------------- - -------------------- - Eleanor Laws QC, David Sherborne and Kate Wilson (instructed by Schillings) for the Claimant Sasha Wass QC, Adam Wolanski QC and Clara Hamer (instructed by Simons Muirhead and Burton) for the Defendants th th th th th th th Hearing dates: 7 -10 July 2020; 13 -17 July 2020; 20-24 July 2020; 27 -28 July 2020 --------------------- Approved Judgment I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic. ............................. MR JUSTICE NICOL MR JUSTICE NICOL Depp v NGN and Wootton Approved Judgment Mr Justice Nicol : 1. This is the trial of a libel claim brought by the American actor commonly known as Johnny Depp. 2. The 1st Defendant is the publisher of The Sun newspaper and also the owner and publisher of the associated website www.thesun.co.uk (‘the website’). The claim concerns an article first published on the website on 27th April 2018 with the headline, ‘GONE POTTY How Can J K Rowling be “genuinely happy” casting wife beater Johnny Depp in the new Fantastic Beasts film?’. 3. The article was written by the 2nd Defendant who is described as the Executive Editor. The full text of the article (as it first appeared on the website) is set out in the Appendix to this judgment (numbers have been added to paragraphs and photo captions for ease of reference). 4. From about 7.58am on 28th April 2018 the headline of the website article was changed to, ‘GONE POTTY How Can J K Rowling be “genuinely happy” casting Johnny Depp in the new Fantastic Beasts film after assault claim?’ (‘the amended headline’). The online article was otherwise the same as it had been. 5. On 28th April 2018 the hard copy edition of The Sun included a substantially article under the amended headline. Procedural history 6. The claim form was issued on 1st June 2018 by the Claimant’s then solicitors, Brown Rudnick LLP. Particulars of Claim followed on 13th June 2018. 7. The natural and ordinary meaning attributed to each of the articles was as follows, ‘The Claimant was guilty, on overwhelming evidence, of serious domestic violence against his then wife, causing significant injury and leading to her fearing for her life, for which the Claimant was constrained to pay no less than £5 million to compensate her, and which resulted in him being subjected to a continuing restraining order; and for that reason is not fit to work in the film industry.’ 8. Since the Claimant has referred collectively to ‘the articles’, I shall do so, too, save where it is necessary to distinguish between them. 9. The Particulars of Claim plead that the publication of the articles has caused serious harm to his personal and professional reputation. He asks the court to draw this inference from: i) The seriousness of the allegations; ii) The huge extent of publication; iii) The effect of accusations of violence against women in the context of the widely known #Me Too / Time’s Up movements; MR JUSTICE NICOL Depp v NGN and Wootton Approved Judgment iv) The inclusion of quotes or purported quotes from women described as victims of Harvey Weinstein (the subject of high profile and serious criminal allegations); v) The very likely intended effect of the articles was to finish the Claimant’s career. 10. The Particulars of Claim also plead these matters in support of the claim for damages: i) The restraining order referred to in the articles was only a temporary restraining order (a ‘TRO’) and Ms Heard’s application for Restraining Orders had been dismissed with prejudice on 16th August 2016, as the Defendants knew. ii) The articles failed to include any denials by the Claimant of Ms Heard’s allegations, although the Defendants were aware of them. iii) The Defendants had previously reported that the police had attended the home of the Claimant and Ms Heard on 21st May [2016] but had concluded that no crime had been committed. That matter had been omitted from the articles which instead gave a ‘one-sided and unfair account’ of the evidence. iv) The articles had misquoted and/or taken out of context remarks by Katherine Kendall, a #Me Too/Time’s Up victim, and failed to correct the website article when Ms Kendall objected to being misquoted. 11. The Defendants served the original version of their Defence on 11th July 2018. The most recent version is the Re-Amended Defence (‘RAD’) served on 6th March 2020. Unless indicated otherwise, references to the Defence are to the RAD. 12. A notable feature of the RAD is that the Defendants rely on the defence of truth in Defamation Act 2013 s.2 in the following meaning, ‘the Claimant beat his wife Amber Heard causing her to suffer significant injury and on occasion leading to her fearing for her life.’ 13. The Defendants plead in paragraph 8a, ‘The Claimant and Ms Heard began living together in or about 2012 and married on 3 February 2015. They separated on or around 22 May 2016. Throughout their relationship the Claimant was controlling and verbally and physically abusive towards Ms Heard, particularly when he was under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs.’ 14. There then follow particulars of 14 incidents (or sometimes a series of incidents). It will be necessary to return to these in due course. 15. There is a confidential schedule to the RAD which pleads further details of violence against Ms Heard by the Claimant. 16. The Claimant initially served a Reply on 20th July 2018. The current version, responding to what was then a draft of the RAD, was served on 25th February 2020 (the ‘RAR’). Unless otherwise indicated when I refer to the Reply, I am speaking of the MR JUSTICE NICOL Depp v NGN and Wootton Approved Judgment RAR. It is sufficient at this stage to note that the Claimant denies ever assaulting Ms Heard. On the contrary, he contends that it was she who assaulted him. 17. As is mentioned in the RAD, Ms Heard and the Claimant separated on or around 22nd May 2016. They subsequently divorced in California, Los Angeles County. The parties reached an agreement which was embodied in a ‘marital settlement agreement’ dated 15th August 2016. 18. On 29th November 2018 the Defendants applied for a stay of the present action on the grounds that they wished to rely on the evidence of Ms Heard but she was inhibited from assisting them because of confidentiality restrictions in the divorce agreement. 19. On 18th December 2018 Ms Heard wrote an article in the Washington Post with the headline, ‘I spoke up against sexual violence – and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change.’ 20. As a result of this, in March 2019 the Claimant sued Ms Heard for libel in the court of Fairfax County, Virginia, USA (‘the Virginia libel action’). That litigation is ongoing. I was told that the trial of the Virginia libel action is not likely to take place before January 2021. 21. On 27th February 2019 Nicklin J. refused the Defendants’ application for a stay of the present action (see [2019] EWHC 1113 (QB)). 22. On 11th February 2020 the Claimant changed his solicitors. Thereafter, they have been Schillings LLP. The Claimant served notice of this change on 11th February 2020. 23. I heard a pre-trial review (‘PTR’) on 26th February 2020. At that stage the trial was due to start on 23rd March 2020 with a 10-day time estimate. The principal issue which was debated before me was the Defendants’ application for disclosure. A number of categories of documents was sought including documents produced by either side in the Virginia libel action. I reserved my decision. 24. I handed down judgment on 6th March 2020 (see [2020] EWHC 505 (QB)). I ordered the Claimant to give disclosure of certain documents. So far as the Virginia libel action was concerned, I recognised that the judge in Virginia had made a ‘protective order’ on 25th September 2019 which had allowed either party to designate documents as confidential. The protective order had allowed the party concerned to permit documents to be used for purposes other than the Virginia libel action. My disclosure order said, in relation to documents in the Virginia libel action, that, if Ms Heard gave such a release, then (see paragraph 3 of my disclosure order), i) Within 48 hours the Claimant had to make a witness statement personally confirming that he had provided all the Virginia libel documents to Schillings. ii) Within 72 hours of (i) Schillings were required to confirm that they had conducted a review of the Virginia libel action documents to ascertain which of them fell within CPR r.31.6. iii) Within the same time any of the Virginia libel action documents which had not so far been disclosed, but which came within r.31.6, were to be disclosed. MR JUSTICE NICOL Depp v NGN and Wootton Approved Judgment 25. I made two orders on 6th March 2020. One concerned disclosure (‘the 6th March 2020 disclosure order’). The other concerned other directions (‘the 6th March 2020 directions order’). So far as the precise terms of these orders had not been agreed, I gave the reasons for my decision in writing (also dated 6th March 2020).