Behind the appeal, Johnny Depp’s attorneys argue that the decision of the first trial was “clearly wrong” in justice

Johnny Depp filed a defamatory libel suit against The Sun over the tabloid after publishing an article calling the actor a “bully”. The decision was made in November last year: Andrew Nicol, a London Supreme Court Justice, ruled against Depp, arguing that it had been proven during the trial that the saga star The Pirates of the Caribbean is repeating his ex-wife, the actress Amber Heard, who feared for her life and concluded that the newspaper’s claims were “essentially true”.

The eternal Eduardo Mãos de Tesoura, however, was not happy with the decision and announced with his career in free fall that he would appeal the judgment.

The case was brought to the English Court of Appeal on Thursday. Depp’s attorneys alleged that the London Supreme Court ruling was “clearly wrong”, arguing that the judge “failed to examine the evidence and arguments with the care that the parties had a right to expect and that an adequate solution would be found of the necessary problems ”.

“The verdict is obviously wrong and the resulting decision in favor of the respondents is obviously insufficient,” the lawyers said in a written statement quoted by Reuters.

During hearings held last summer, Amber said that while under the influence of drugs and alcohol, Depp became a “monster” and often threatened to kill an actor who suffocated, hit, hit, strangled and kicked.

Depp denied the allegations, saying he had never been violent towards his ex-wife, whom he described as a sociopath: “These sick claims are completely false.”

However, of the 14 situations described, the judge accepted 12 reports as credible. Decisions accused of Depp’s lawyers were not supported by “evidence-based analysis” but only by testimony.

The causids further argue that the judge “accepted without criticism” what Amber had to say while rejecting evidence that “could ruin his credibility”. Among them are documents showing that the $ 7 million resulting from the divorce agreement between the two of them was never given to charities, contrary to what the actress said.

The lawyers for News Group Newspapers, the editorial group of which The Sun is a part, argued in writing that there was no reason to appeal. “From the detailed judgment it appears that there is no basis for concluding that the judge did not examine the evidence or substantiate his conclusions,” Reuters quoted as saying.

Following the London court ruling, Johnny Depp saw his name removed from the cast of Fantastic Beasts 3 – although the seal of approval was not compromised given the terms of the contract – and from the television series about the famous illusionist Harry Houdini, produced by Jerry Bruckheimer. In addition, the ruling on UK soil undermines yet another court case denying it against his ex-wife, whom she accuses of defamation following an opinion piece the actress wrote in the Washington Post in December 2018.

However, the decision of a new trial to review Judge Andrew Nicol’s judgment will not be taken immediately: “We will not make a decision today, but we will take it very soon and put it in writing,” stated Lord Nicholas Underhill, Judge at the UK Court of Appeals .

Back to top button