Johnny Depp's anger based on 'deep misogyny', court told
A “deep misogyny” lay at the root of the anger that Johnny Depp translated into violence – fuelled by an addiction to alcohol and drugs – against his then wife, Amber Heard, the high court has heard.
The actor’s recollection of “his own disgraceful conduct” was so severely impaired though drink and drugs he may not have been aware of “the extent of his violent and terrifying behaviour”, it was claimed.
The Pirates of the Caribbean star had described himself as “a southern gentleman who had respect for women” but texts showed this was “entirely untrue”, said Sasha Wass QC, summing up for News Group Newspapers (NGN), which owns the Sun, in the threeweek libel case brought by Depp.In texts Depp, 57, had described women as “sluts” and “fat ugly whores”. In one he said he would “smack the ugly cunt around” after asking whether a “worthless hooker” had arrived. In another, he described his former partner Vanessa Paradis as a “withering cunt”.
Depp also “created a misogynistic persona of [Heard] as the stereotype of a nagging woman”. In addition, he had “reverted to more old-fashioned accusations of gold digger, a shrew and an adulterer”, Wass said.
It demonstrated “a deep misogyny” that “lay at the root of Mr Depp’s anger, and the anger he felt against Miss Heard, which translated into violence when he felt threatened by her”, added Wass.
Wass said the relationship between Depp and Heard represented a “clash of cultures” and a “clash of generations”. The actor had spent his entire life “doing what he wanted” and he was not going to “answer to a woman at this time of life”, she said. “They were generations apart.”
Depp is suing NGN, and the Sun’s executive editor, Dan Wootton, over an article that called him a “wife beater” and referred to “overwhelming evidence” that he had attacked Heard. Depp denies ever hitting Heard, 34, who has submitted details of 14 occasions during their relationship when she claims he assaulted her.
Wass said NGN’s defence “is one of truth, namely that Mr Depp did indeed beat his wife”. Though the newspaper must prove on the balance of probabilities that Depp assaulted her on at least one occasion, she said the defendants had “established that many more than one incident of wife beating took place”, against the backdrop of a “drug and alcohol fuelled lifestyle”.
Wass said these were “libel proceedings” and not “matrimonial proceedings,” though onlookers “might be forgiven for confusing the two”. The court was not deciding “who’s at fault”, but whether Depp assaulted Heard. Heard was not on trial, and was a witness. Depp, however, had brought the proceedings “and as such has put his own character very much in issue,” she said.
Evidence showed Depp was a “hopeless addict” whose own doctor said “actually romanticises the entire drugs culture and has no accountability for his behaviours”. He was subject to “irrational mood swings and abnormal behavioural patterns”, she added
Of the 14 alleged incidents, perhaps “one of the most shocking” was what Heard had described as a “three-day hostage situation” in Australia, where Depp was filming, said Wass. It was “not only that Mr Depp had wrecked the house, he had cut off his own finger” and then “went on to dip his finger in paint … and scrawled graffiti over the property”.
Wass continued: “The question has got to be asked: What sort of state was Mr Depp in when he behaved in this way? He was literally out of his mind.”
Although the point had been made that witnesses called by the defence did not see Depp actually hit Heard, she said: “Each and every pleaded incident is supported by the testimony of Miss Heard herself and if my lord finds her to be a truthful and plausible witness, doing her best to recount what must have been extremely traumatic events, then Miss Heard’s evidence alone is sufficient to establish the defence of truth.”
She added: “The days are long past when the courts in this country required corroboration before accepting the unsupported testimony of a female complainant.”
Wass said a “wealth of evidence” supported Heard’s claims: text messages, medical evidence from those treating Depp for addiction and painting him as “a hopeless addict” and “unable to restrain his anger”, photographic evidence, and eyewitness testimonies of his assaults or their aftermath.
Depp’s response that he was the victim of an elaborate hoax perpetrated by Heard and her friends by “painting on injuries and manipulating photographs” as part of “some sort of insurance policy” for Heardwas risible, said Wass.
The case continues. Depp’s lawyers will be making their closing submissions tomorrow.