Tabloid Press and Defamation
By: Sara Haro Munoz
Tags: Law, Tabloids, Civil Law, Journalism, Writing

Johnny Depp recently lost his libel battle against The Sun — but what are the legal reasons behind the claim and court’s ruling?

As defined by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), a defamatory statement is one that “seriously harms the reputation of a person or organisation”. In the case that the defamatory statement is published and in writing, print or some other permanent form, it then constitutes as libel.

The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) code of conduct states that journalists have a responsibility to “ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair”. The problem with tabloid papers is that they often go for the ‘shock factor’. They make bold statements in headlines, often with little evidence, making them more susceptible to defamatory claims. The Sun is no stranger to legal battles, and their most recent libel claim was made by Johnny Depp. Here is a breakdown of the case, and legal aspects faced by publications and journalists.

The claim

In April 2018, The Sun published an article with the headline: ‘How can JK Rowling be genuinely happy casting wife beater Johnny Depp in the new Fantastic Beasts film?’. Disputing the statement that he abused his ex-wife, Amber Heard, Depp brought action against the newspaper under Section 1 (1) of the Defamation Act 2013. Essentially, his legal team made the case that the headline would cause ‘serious harm to his reputation’. The Sun utilised the ‘truth defence’ (Section 2 of the Defamation Act). This meant that The Sun’s defence involved trying to prove that Depp was in fact a ‘woman beater’, subsequently proving their headline to be ‘true’ and thus lawful. Judge Mr Justice Nicol concluded that The Sun had proved what was in the article to be ‘substantially true’.

Criminal law vs. civil law: where the confusion lies

Many fans have come to Depp’s defence, with #JusticeForJohnnyDepp circulating on Twitter, claiming that he was also abused by Amber Heard. The issue here is that while there might be evidence to support this, the case was a civil one, not criminal. The court wasn’t trying to determine whether or not Depp or Heard had been abusive. Rather, The Sun’s evidence against Depp was used solely to prove whether they had been lawful in labelling him a ‘woman beater’. Despite the court having ruled the statement to be ‘substantially true’, no criminal action will be brought to Depp due to it being a civil case. This case wasn’t ‘Depp vs. Heard’, but ‘Depp vs. The Sun’.

The grey area between legality and morality

The main objective of the case was to determine whether or not the term ‘woman beater’ was substantially true. This means that regardless of context or whether Heard had also been abusive, The Sun just had to prove that Depp had in fact been violent towards his ex-wife on at least one occasion. While this absolves them of being unlawful, this doesn’t necessarily mean that The Sun’s portrayal of Heard and Depp’s relationship is completely accurate and fair — just that he had in fact been violent towards her in one way or another.

Ethical responsibilities

Sensationalised headlines are problematic in terms of the ethical responsibility of journalists. While the term ‘woman beater’ has been proven ‘substantially true’, there’s no denying that there are more sensitive ways to approach the reporting of domestic abuse. Ultimately, strong statements are used to enhance the news value of ‘negativity’ and increase newsworthiness. The IPSO editors code of practice states that everyone is entitled to privacy, and if this privacy is breached by a publication it must be in the public interest. As a publication known for its provocative headlines, The Sun’s intentions when writing the article are questionable. The question here is: did they write the article with public interest in mind, or were they simply looking sell as many copies as possible?