Depp is ruled a ‘wife beater’ by judge
Johnny Depp’s role in the Harry Potter franchise appeared untenable last night after a High Court judge ruled that a newspaper article describing him as a “wife beater” was “substantially true”. The actor resumed filming in London last month on Fantastic Beasts 3, a Potter prequel. Depp had sued over a 2018 article in The Sun that alleged he was violent towards Amber Heard, his ex-wife. Depp’s lawyers immediately announced plans to appeal.
JOHNNY DEPP’S role in the Harry Potter franchise appeared untenable last night as domestic violence charities said film studios should not employ “men who have hurt women”.
Depp’s career was in tatters after a High Court judge ruled that a newspaper article describing him as a “wife beater” was “substantially true”.
The Hollywood actor resumed filming in London last month on Fantastic Beasts 3, a Potter prequel. Warner Bros was under pressure last night to cut the actor from the franchise.
In what was billed as the libel trial of the century, Depp sued over a 2018 article in The Sun that alleged he was violent towards Amber Heard, his ex-wife.
But what unfolded was a litany of incidents of “terrifying” domestic violence, physical fights and drug abuse that left Heard, as a British judge concluded, “in fear of her life”. The Pirates of the Caribbean star was ruled to have inflicted a series of violent episodes on Heard during their tumultuous fouryear relationship. Mr Justice Nicol threw out the defamation claim against The Sun, ruling that the newspaper had proved what was in the article to be “substantially true”.
Domestic violence charities said employers should make clear they had a zero tolerance approach to abusers.
Sarah Green, director of the End Violence Against Women coalition, said: “The outcome of this case has shone a spotlight on the ways that the powerful use the law to shield themselves from being held to account for their behaviour. We now need those who provide the platform for these men – be they film producers, sports club owners or advertising executives – to take a stand in the name of ending violence against women and girls, and stop employing men who have hurt women.”
Nicki Norman, acting chief executive of Women’s Aid, said: “The Depp verdict is likely to have an impact on his employability, because film companies may not want to be associated with an abusive man.”
Depp’s l a wyers i mmediately announced plans to appeal. Schillings, the London-based media law firm, issued a statement highly critical of Mr Justice Nicol, calling his judgment as “perverse as it is bewildering”.
But Emily Cox, a media partner at Stewarts law firm, said: “The high-risk strategy of bringing libel proceedings has backfired spectacularly. Although not a criminal determination of guilt, it is difficult to see how Depp will ever be able to shake off the ‘wife beater’ label.”
JK Rowling, the Harry Potter author and a Fantastic Beasts producer, is herself a survivor of domestic abuse, as she disclosed in June. Jorge Arantes, her exhusband, has conceded that he slapped her but denied that he abused her. But she declined to comment on the Depp case yesterday. Her spokesman said: “This is a studio matter.” When the allegations against Depp first surfaced in 2017, Rowling was criticised for standing behind him after he was cast as Gellert Grindelwald in Fantastic Beasts.
Over 12 days in July, the Royal Courts of Justice in London heard remarkable accounts from the couple – who married in 2015 – their friends, family and former partners piecing together the rapid, and often vicious, downfall of their Hollywood marriage.
Heard alleged that her ex-husband had physically and emotionally abused her on 14 separate incidents from 2013 to 2016, including throwing a bottle at her, explicitly threatening to kill her and headbutting her in the face.
In a 129-page ruling, Mr Justice Nicol concluded that the majority of the 14 abusive incidents alleged by Heard and The Sun had occurred.
She said the first incident happened after she joked about a tattoo Depp had on his arm in tribute to his relationship with actress Winona Ryder, which originally read “Winona Forever”, but was altered to “Wino Forever” after they split. The joke resulted in Depp hitting her, she told the court, for which he later cried and apologised, telling her that he sometimes turned into “the monster” when he snapped.
In 2014, Depp pushed, slapped and kicked his wife while on a private jet flying from Boston to LA. The following year, while promoting a film of his in Tokyo, Heard said that Depp “slapped her and grabbed her by the hair”. Depp denied the incident took place because his two children were present, but Mr Justice Nicol ruled that it did.
The following year, Heard claimed that while in Australia with Depp, he repeatedly assaulted her after arguing over his MDMA use, during which he pushed her into a table tennis table, tore off her nightgown and attacked her, before smashing a telephone into a wall and severing the top of his middle finger. While Mr Justice Nicol dismissed Heard’s suggestion of being kept a “hostage” as “hyperbole”, he concluded that “she was the victim of sustained and multiple assaults by Depp in Australia”.
The court also found that Depp physically abused Heard in 2016 on her 30th birthday when he threw “a magnumsized bottle of champagne” at her.
While the torrent of abuse inflicted on Heard prevailed during the threeweek trial, her alleged contribution to the couple’s toxic relationship did not escape unchallenged. Depp’s legal team accused the actress of being violent herself and “building up a dossier” of evidence against Depp because she was preparing an “insurance policy” for when they divorced. Both arguments were rejected by Mr Justice Nicol.
Jenny Afia, the Schillings lawyer whose clients also include the Duchess of Sussex in her privacy claim against the Mail on Sunday, said the judge’s reliance on Heard’s testimony was “troubling”, adding: “The judgment is so flawed that it would be ridiculous for Mr Depp not to appeal this decision.”
However, lawyers said an appeal would likely fail because there was no aspect of the law the judge had got wrong in coming to his conclusion based on evidence heard at the trial.
‘It’s likely to have an impact. Film companies may not want to be associated with an abusive man’