UKC

For lovers of salacious celebrity gossip...

Johnny Depp has lost his libel claim against The Sun which described him in an online article as a "wife beater".

The full judgement (which in my in-expert legal opinion is pretty damning) is here - 

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Depp_V_News_Group_Newsp...

While Depp deserves whatever hit to his reputation comes from this judgement, it's unfortunate that we'll have to put up with days of gloating from nobody's favourite tabloid...

In reply to planetmarshall:

I can't imagine what his legal bills are going to be: even a Hollywood superstar has his limits, and I don't suppose casting directors are queuing outside his door. 

In reply to planetmarshall:

Whoever advised him to pursue the case?

I and I’m guessing many others hadn’t heard about the Sun’s story but we have now.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

There is something in the judgement about him being given "catastrophic" news about his financial affairs, even before this case.

In reply to planetmarshall:

According to Google he's worth $200m. I guess that will more than cover it but given the details in the case, the next $10m paycheck might be harder to come by.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

His behaviour was very well known before he was cast in (for example) Murder on the Orient Express and Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald ( a film that, I am ashamed to say - in terms of my not consistently separating the artist from the art - I really struggled to watch because of his presence in it) 


edit - oops, I wrote the above before reading the report which seems to centre ON an article about his casting in Fantastic Beasts! 

In reply to baron:

Streisand Effect in full, er, effect! 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I had to google that. 😀

In reply to planetmarshall:

Would be good if they pulled the Eau Sauvage adverts as well.

What brand would want to be associated with him at all?

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

$200m seems like a piddling amount for someone of his standing. 

I have no real idea of what your average Hollywood megastar is worth mind, and it's worth more than a zillion Thundercats....

In reply to baron:

You believe what The Sun publishes?

In reply to baron:

Yes, legal Twitter seems to be very much of this opinion (though hindsight is a wonderful thing).

Even if he had won, there's enough material in the report to keep Tabloids busy for weeks.

On a related note, I'm sure Paul Bettany isn't massively chuffed at being named as Depp's cocaine using partner of choice...

In reply to ThunderCat:

I don’t think they become billionaires. Say he’s on $10-$20 million per movie and there’s , on average, one every two years. That’s still ten years to amass $200 million and he has to live his bad-boy lifestyle off that too. Income supplemented by modelling and endorsing (Sauvage cologne etc)

I read last year that Miley Cyrus is worth $200 million which surprised me at first 

In reply to planetmarshall:

I skim-read it and was surprised (I don’t know why I should have been surprised particularly) to see Bettany’s name pop up! 

In reply to Babika:

Primark vest type t shirts.

Aka .........

In reply to planetmarshall:

Depp's lawyers view - 

"This decision is as perverse as it is bewildering.

"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."

"The judgement is so flawed that it would be ridiculous for Mr Depp not to appeal this decision," 

In reply to Bacon Butty:

I’m from Merseyside, we don’t read the Sun.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

Well yes, these will be the same lawyers who advised him to pursue the case!

Of course, if he does appeal, it will be interesting to see on what grounds.

In reply to Babika:

Stella Artois ? 

In reply to baron:

A QC interviewed on the BBC said this case was ill-advised...

In reply to planetmarshall:

Absolutely, although it just seemed a bit more than a "my client is disappointed" statement. 

In reply to captain paranoia:

Now that I've read a lot more about the case, and his past history, I find it almost inexplicable that Depp pursued this folly.

In reply to planetmarshall:

Hang about, is everybody here against Depp, despite the overwhelming evidence against Herd?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Well, I suppose a cursory view of the evidence would indicate that Depp didn't really have a clue what was going on.

I know it's wrong on many levels but I find it hard to not be just a little bit sorry for the poor b*stard. He's not the first person of talent to have failings in other areas. And yes, that's all notwithstanding his ex, who patently had a pretty grim time which she didn't deserve. 

In reply to mattck:

Did you read the full report?  

This case wasn’t Heard vs Depp.

It was Depp vs The Sun.  

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

The only people winning in this are the lawyers.  

Of course they’d love him to appeal.  Their eyes would be $$$$$

In reply to marsbar:

By all accounts this was a mutually destructive relationship, but as you say the only winners in this case are both legal teams, write your own pay cheques. 

In reply to Albert Tatlock:

Yes, I can't imagine many relationships would survive having to make that excruciating public apology for your partner idiotically having insisted on smuggling her Yorkshire terriers into Australia.

Nevertheless, that doesn't excuse his behaviour - he should have walked away. 

In reply to Dave Garnett:

It appears from the report it was as much him wanting the dogs there.  He strikes me as someone who thinks rules don’t apply to him.  

In reply to mattck:

Herd immunity.

In reply to mattck:

I'm not "against" Depp, but I've read the court judgement, and from my admittedly non-expert point of view it seems sound.