Less than two years ago, Johnny Depp lost his UK defamation lawsuit against The Sun - the tabloid he described as a "woman beater" - after his ex-wife, Amber Heard, testified in support of his allegations. The Sun.
Judge, Mr. Justice Nicol, said the Sun had proven his article to be "essentially true" and found that 12 of the 14 suspected incidents of domestic violence against Heard had occurred. At the time, Heard's lawyer in the U.S., Elaine Charlson Bredehoft, said the decision was not a surprise. "Very soon, we will present even more voluminous evidence in the US," she said.
Bredehoft may have been surprised when recently, the US court upheld Johnny Depp. On Wednesday, Heard's evidence was rejected by a jury in Virginia, despite it being assumed by many, including legal experts, that Depp was less likely to win.
Anyone may have thought it was easier to win a defamation lawsuit in the UK than in the US, where free speech is the first amendment to the constitution and is considered sacred. So what happened?
Lawyer Mark Stephens told the Guardian that it affects the fact that the trial in the US took place before a jury while the trial in the UK before a judge.
"Because the U.S. trial was before a jury, it allowed Depp's attorneys to focus on Heard," a tactic well used in domestic abuse cases but rejected by a UK judge, Stephens said. .
"They deny that [their client] did anything, deny that they are the real perpetrator of the crime, and attack the credibility of the individual [ie Heard] who claims abuse."
Heard's team also made tactical mistakes and was overtaken by a group of more experienced lawyers, Stephens added. "The Heard team did not have mainly trained lawyers on defamation cases and they were 'shot' in every corner. "They were facing a very strong team for Depp," he said.
Source: Guardian
