CASE SETS BACK FIGHT AGAINST DV BY A QUARTER OF A CENTURY
Neither Johnny Depp nor Amber Heard came across well after the seven week defamation trial – but the real loser has been the battle against a major scourge
AMBER Heard has put the fight against domestic violence (DV) against women back a quarter of a century.
Her alleged rage-fuelled attacks against former husband Johnny Depp – a lot of it played out in a Gold Coast mansion in 2016 during the filming of Pirates of the Caribbean – demonstrates why the courts need to be so careful with domestic violence matters.
Heard has been exposed in a defamation case as an alleged aggressor in many of the DV incidents that dominated their short marriage.
According to the evidence presented to court, both Depp and Heard are violent people. That much is known and true. But a jury found in Depp’s favour and awarded him $20m in damages.
They believed him. For many, particularly women, the Depp victory will be portrayed as a miscarriage of justice.
The court heard crazy and vile character assessments from both Depp and Heard against each other. In reality, there was no winner.
Here’s my opinion. Like the jury found, Heard showed a looseness with the truth that did not go down well with her peers.
That’s not to say Depp was an angel. Far from it.
But at a time when the world has never been more exposed or alive to the scourge of domestic violence, Heard’s loss is a terrible look.
What the evidence showed is that in the cut and thrust of sordid lives, drugs, alcohol, and unlimited money, people have very different recollections.
Heard said she wrote the article that was the subject of the defamation action to help give women a voice against violence.
Instead, she has done the opposite.
A jury found that it is okay to level accusations against your ex husband, but they must be truthful and accurate.
Depp sued over a Washington Post op-ed, titled “I spoke up against sexual violence – and faced our culture’s wrath”.
In the piece, the actress writes: “Two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse.” The article did not mention Depp, but his lawyers say that the piece was about him – and was defamatory.
A jury agreed.
They found that Heard defamed Depp, acting with “malice,” when she described herself as a victim of domestic abuse.
Some say the decision has the effect of sanctioning Depp’s alleged abuse of Heard, and of punishing Heard for speaking about it.
They say it will have a devastating effect on survivors, who will be silenced, with the knowledge that they cannot speak about their violent experiences at men’s hands.
One opinion writer even referred to it as “a public orgy of misogyny’’.
At a time when Queensland is about to introduce coercive control laws to stop men using tactics other than physical violence to terrorise their partner, the Johnny Depp-amber Heard case is a lesson.
That lesson is about police and the courts having an open mind.
It is obvious that domestic violence is real, and in its most evil form can have catastrophic and deadly consequences.
It is also clear that police need to be much more proactive in the way they protect those who are being subjected to such violence. That’s why a special DV unit is essential.
But what the Amber Heard-johnny Depp case
demonstrates unambiguously is that in drama-charged situations, involving alcohol, and drugs, the real story can often be blurred.
It is irresponsible for proHeard advocates to say she was a victim, and that she’s been wronged.
Both her and Depp were victims.
Unfortunately for Heard, the jury believed Depp.
By misleading, as found by the jury, she has put the plight of many women back a generation.
That is the sad, inescapable conclusion from this tawdry affair.
Unfortunately for Amber Heard, the jury believed Johnny Depp