22 March 2024
Defamation – France – J’accuse: Roman Polanski in court
Auteur Roman Polanski is being sued for defamation in France. The case, being heard in Paris, arose from a 2019 interview Polanski gave to French magazine, Paris Match, in which he said the actress Charlotte Lewis had told a ‘heinous lie’ in 2010 about being sexually assaulted by him in 1983, when she was aged 16. At that time, Mr Polanski had fled the United States after he admitted having sex with a 13-year-old girl.
Ms Lewis claims that Mr Polanski’s comments are defamatory of her. She filed a complaint for defamation and the film director was automatically charged. Mr Polanski’s lawyer has asserted that the 2019 Paris Match article does not contain a defamatory statement. In the article Mr Polanski quoted Ms Lewis as having said in a 1999 News of the World article, ‘I was fascinated by him, and I wanted to be his lover’. The accuracy of the quote is disputed by Ms Lewis and Mr Polanski’s lawyer has called on now-defunct News of the World reporter, Stuart White, to appear as a witness.
As zoom-in went to print, the case was ongoing.
Elsewhere in France, two women who had falsely accused the French first lady, Brigitte Macron, of being born a man have been fined. The accusation that the first lady had been born as a boy named Jean-Michel Trogneux in 1953 was made in a video posted online in December 2021, and gained traction during the 2022 presidential campaign. Jean-Michel Trogneux is, in fact, the name of Brigitte Macron’s brother.
The pair had also claimed that the first lady’s first husband had never existed, and that she had been in a relationship with a woman named Catherine Auzière. Ms Auzière gave evidence during the trial and had been joined as a party to the case.
The court in Lisieux fined the two women, giving what were described as ‘symbolic fines’, which were reduced on appeal. They were also ordered to pay Ms Auzière and her husband’s legal costs.
Unlike in the UK where defamation cases can only be pursued as civil actions for damages, it is also punishable as a criminal offence in France
Privacy – The Guardian and the Daily Mirror make payment to Dan Wootton and apologise following privacy complaint
Both The Guardian and the Daily Mirror have apologised and agreed to make payments to Dan Wootton, the former GB News presenter.
The Guardian published an article which said Wootton was under police investigation. The article had the headline, “Police investigating allegations Dan Wootton solicited explicit images” on 2 October 2023. The following day, after complaints from Wootton’s lawyers, the article was removed.
The Guardian published the following apology: “We apologise to Mr Wootton for the article. Last week, the Metropolitan Police and Police Scotland said that they had concluded their investigations and are taking no further action. Mr Wootton has restated that the police inquiries have exonerated him of any criminal wrongdoing. The Guardian has paid a contribution to Mr Wootton’s costs.”
The Mirror followed suit, issuing an apology that read, “An article headlined ‘Met Police launches probe into ‘Dan Wootton sex offences’ allegations’ was published on our website on 2 October 2023 and removed later that day following a complaint from Dan Wootton. Last week, the Metropolitan Police and Police Scotland said that they had concluded their investigations and are taking no further action. We accept that we were wrong to have published the article and apologise unreservedly to Mr Wootton for any upset the article may have caused. Mr Wootton has restated that the police inquiries have exonerated him of any criminal wrongdoing.”
As Wootton’s lawyer pointed out, it is now well-established in UK law that people who are the subject of a police investigation have a right to privacy in relation to that information, unless they are charged with a criminal offence.
Whilst various other publications also published the story, the Guardian was the first to settle with Wootton. Byline Times, the first publication to publish the story has said: “Byline Times will respond to Dan Wootton’s lawyer in due course. Meanwhile, we will always stand by public interest journalism.”
The change in privacy law regarding the publication of information relating to a person under criminal investigation comes from the 2022 UK Supreme Court case ZXC v Bloomberg. ZXC was a US citizen who worked for a company which operated overseas. The activities of this individual in a particular company were being criminally investigated by a UK law enforcement body (“UKLEB”). As part of that investigation, the UKLEB sent a confidential Letter of Request to a foreign state. Bloomberg obtained a copy of the letter and published an article reporting on the content of it. ZXC sued Bloomberg for misuse of private information. At first instance the claim for misuse of private information was upheld and damages were awarded. Bloomberg’s appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. In so doing, the Supreme Court held that, as a legitimate starting point, a person under criminal investigation has, prior to being charged, a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of information relating to that investigation.
Defamation – Preliminary trial in libel case involving the film, The Lost King, starring Steve Coogan
A trial of preliminary issues took place before the High Court to determine the natural and ordinary meaning of the film, The Lost King, in a libel case brought by former University of Leicester deputy registrar Richard Taylor.
The preliminary trial also considered whether the meaning found is defamatory at common law and whether the film contained statements of fact or opinion.
Taylor is suing the actor-writer Steve Coogan, Baby Cow Productions and Pathe Productions regarding his portrayal in the film. The film concerns the discovery of Richard III’s remains in a car park in 2012 and the role played by historian, Philippa Langley, in finding them. Taylor alleges that he is presented in the film as being, “dismissive, patronising and misogynistic.”
In written submissions, Taylor’s barrister said, “The relevant context is the ‘good versus bad’ narrative, which runs through the film. Ms Langley is portrayed as the gutsy underdog heroine struggling against opposition and the claimant as the arrogant villain”. “He not only takes steps to make sure that people do not know about her role but takes the credit, which was rightfully hers, for himself and the university”. The barrister also said Taylor was portrayed as “mocking” Richard III’s disability.
The barrister representing the defendants said in a written statement: “It is a feature film, not a documentary. It would be clear to the ordinary reasonable viewer that the film is not a documentary, it is a dramatisation of events.” He said that the film was “based on a true story” and it was not “a literal portrayal of exact words”. The barrister denied that Taylor was shown to be sexist or misogynistic, saying that “whilst the film is clearly strongly critical of Mr Taylor”, his motive is to exploit the discovery for the university’s commercial interests. It was also denied that the film showed Taylor as mocking disabled people.
Pathe said in a statement: “Pathe has a long, respected and successful history of financing and distributing dramatic motion pictures based on real people, events and stories…and we stand by our decision to finance The Lost King, to give Philippa Langley a voice and to bring her story to the screen.” “We will respect the judge’s decision and are confident that the film doesn’t bear the meaning which Richard Taylor is alleging. It was never Pathe’s intention to misrepresent anyone and we believe we will succeed in defending the film and Pathe’s position.”
The judge will give the ruling at a later date.
Defamation - controversial footballer Joey Barton sued over Jeremy Vine tweet
Presenter Jeremy Vine is suing former-Manchester City, QPR and Newcastle footballer, Joey Barton, in libel. The claim concerns a tweet in which Barton called Vine a ‘bike nonce’ next to an image of convicted paedophile and disgraced TV personality, Rolf Harris. The following day Barton also retweeted a similar tweet featuring a picture of Vine and commented “If you see this fella by a primary school call 999”
Barton has documented the development of the legal proceedings on social media. He shared pictures of legal documents with the caption “So @theJeremyVine is suing me… Fella who served me the papers was sound.” He also shared details of settlement negotiations and has set up a GoFundMe page to cover his legal fees which, he tweeted “could easily cost [him] up to £500k”. The page describes Barton as “[standing] at the forefront of a battle for justice and fairness” and stated that any damages awarded will be donated to the Alder Hey Children's Hospital Trust.
This is the second libel action issued against Barton this year: ex-footballer and pundit Eni Aluko issued proceedings in respect of a tweet of 19 January 2024 about her and her family. They included the following tweet: “More has come to light about poor, little Eni Aluko. Dad was a Nigerian Senator. Dodgy money. Ran to England. Massive house in Wentworth. 3 Rolls Royce's [sic]. St Mary's in Ascot private education. Lawyer. Race card player.”
Aluko responded to the tweet in a statement posted to Instagram. She confirmed that she had taken legal action and wrote:
“It is particularly harmful that Mr Barton involved my family in that post, suggesting my late father, a distinguished Nigerian senator, was in receipt of 'dodgy money' and that I had benefitted from his corruption which paid for my lavish lifestyle including Rolls Royce cars and a private education. Mr Barton also publicly stated he knew where my family lived. These, and the other allegations he made in the post, are all entirely untrue and have caused me extreme harm and distress. These were made just days after I stated publicly that I was genuinely scared, following Mr Barton's repeated online posts targeting me using extreme violent comparisons in previous weeks.”
zoom-in will continue to follow both claims as they progress.
Defamation - US - Third time unlucky for Samantha Markle as libel claim dismissed ‘with prejudice’
A Florida judge has dismissed ‘with prejudice’ Samantha Markle’s libel claim against her half-sister, the Duchess of Sussex, after three failed attempts at amending her case.
The claim concerned statements attributed to the Duchess, 42, in the book, Finding Freedom, in her CBS interview with Oprah in 2022, and in her Netflix series, Harry and Meghan.
Samantha Markle, 59, claimed that she was defamed (and/or defamed by implication) by various statements which she says painted her as a ‘liar and fame seeker’.
The judge, in striking out the claim, found that the Duchess’ remarks were statements of opinion, true, or otherwise not capable of amounting to defamation or defamation-by-implication, because they did not refer to Samantha Markle. The same judge previously struck out other parts of the claim on the bases that the statements sued upon were either not published by the Duchess, matters of opinion, or not contained in the original publications.
The effect of this latest dismissal ‘with prejudice’ is that Samantha Markle will be prohibited from re-issuing the claim, marking a unanimous victory for the Duchess.
Abbas Media Law is a niche law firm, specialising in advice to independent production companies and broadcasters. We are true experts in our field: all lawyers and advisors have in the past worked either in-house for broadcasters and/or production companies.
Accordingly, we fully understand production and the needs of our clients. We offer expert advice and representation on all programme content related matters (legal and regulatory), all aspects of business affairs, as well as complaints-handling and litigation. Visit www.abbasmedialaw.com or contact us directly at info@abbasmedialaw.com.