The defamation trial brought by Johnny Depp against his ex-wife Amber Heard has come to a close, with the former being awarded $15 million in damages. The jury in this matter found that Ms Heard’s accusations of abuse were “false” and that she had acted with “actual malice”.

The jury also and separately ruled in favour of Ms Heard on a countersuit, finding that she was defamed on one of three occasions and was awarded $2 million in damages. 

In a statement issued via Instagram post-verdict, Mr Depp said that, six years ago, his life and those of his children and those closest to him were “forever changed”.

“False, very serious and criminal allegations were levied at me via the media, which triggered an endless barrage of hateful content, although no charges were ever brought against me.

“Six years later, the jury gave me my life back. I am truly humbled,” he wrote.

In her own Instagram statement, Ms Heard said that she is disappointed “beyond words”.

“I’m heartbroken that the mountain of evidence still was not enough to stand up to the disproportionate power, influence and sway of my ex-husband.

VIEW ALL

“It sets back the clock to a time when a woman who spoke up and spoke out could be publicly shamed and humiliated,” she said.

‘The worst of human nature’ in the courtoom

The trial was conducted, Marque Lawyers managing partner Michael Bradley mused, as American-based litigation tends to be: “like a circus”.

The verdict, he said, fits that description too.

“It is a devastating blow to the cause of redressing gendered violence, and the reverberations will be felt everywhere,” he mused. 

The trial doesn’t tell us anything useful in terms of Australian defamation law, Mr Bradley explained, “because the truth was the first casualty in the case and it simply could not have played out that way here”.

“However, there is an object lesson for our courts: allowing trials to become reality television shows invites the worst of human nature into the courtroom. It is a dangerous path and judges need to be very mindful of this,” he warned. 

“The outcome of this case is simply a victory, quite likely temporary (pending appeal), for misogynistic victim-blaming; survivors everywhere will be rightly terrified by it.”

What the case does show, O’Brien Criminal and Civil Solicitors senior lawyer Stewart O’Connell said, is that defamation trials “are complex, and a good legal team is absolutely necessary”. 

“Depp reportedly spent around US$5 million on his legal team, and it seems to have been a worthwhile investment,” he reflected. 

“It should also serve as a reminder to people to try and avoid defaming others — no one wants to be on the end of a defamation suit. The best way to avoid this is to not publish anything that you cannot prove to be true by independent evidence.”

Paradigm shift in how litigation is perceived?

Executive Legal partner and head of litigation Jahan Kalantar reflected that, what the world witnessed, was a complex trial playing out in real-time.

“It is rare for matters like this to reach a court process and rarer still for it to be televised. I wonder if this will herald in a new age of trial in the public eye and if that will change the way that justice is administered,” he suggested.

Australian lawyers should be aware, Mr Kalantar posited, that cases such as this litigation “shift the paradigm” and the understanding of how court proceedings are perceived.

“We should be aware that similar to when Judge Judy began to air in the top spot, there will be a lot of misinformation and perceptions that we as a profession will need to remedy and that we may see a shift in expectations from our clients moving forward,” he warned.

“This will present new challenges and new opportunities.”

‘Cultural weight’ to who suffers domestic violence

Justice Family Lawyers principal Hayder Shkara described the outcome as a “strong win” for Mr Depp.

“Depp’s lawyers were strategic and managed to disassemble Heard’s evidence methodically. Their cross-examination showed that they were prepared and had done their research – asking questions that they already knew the answers to and leading witnesses right to where they wanted them,” he outlined.

“On the flip side, Heard’s lawyers didn’t do as good of a job, asking questions that backfired, frequently resulting in clips that ended up in my social media feed to the international community’s amusement.”

One thing that became very clear during the proceedings, Mr Shkara noted, is that “this was not a healthy relationship” and that “abuse was somewhat accepted or normalised during the relationship”.

“Yes, men get abused. In my legal practice, we see this every day. More needs to be done about this and there are men out there that are really struggling and need support,” Mr Shkara continued.

“That doesn’t mean that women do not get abused. The stats are that there are more women who are victims of domestic violence than there are men. This case does not change the stats.”

Ms Heard has tried to fly the flag for female victims of domestic violence, Mr Shkara pointed out, as evidenced by her statement that she is “even more disappointed with what this verdict means for other women”.

However, Mr Shkara argued, “this case really has no co-relation to other women and each case of abuse”.

“This case isn’t setting women’s rights back. Each case is decided individually and on the facts. There is no presumption that one gender is correct and their version of events should be accepted without being challenged.”

For Australian practitioners, he told Lawyers Weekly, the case “does give some form of ‘cultural weight’ to how men can be victims of domestic violence”.

“The publicity of the case has been so large that it may have flow on effects in the minds of Australians police officers, lawyers, prosecutors, and the courts.

Cultural diversity and damages caps

Jackson John Defence Lawyers partner Yashvi Shah agreed on the point that men can be, and are, sometimes the victims of DV.

“More men should feel safe and secured than the justice system will take their allegations of assault seriously when they are not the abusers and have been wrongly accused of DV by the female perpetrator,” she posited.

“The UK adversarial system failed Mr Depp’s claim because they believed he was the wife basher while the US inquisitorial system benefited his claim with a new and prestigious legal team, the jurors in America felt more invested in this internationally publicised case and the evidence was scrutinised undoing Ms Heard’s previous testimonies which jury found she had lied under oath.

“Public viewing initiated support for Mr Depp, even from female activists who changed their minds about Ms Heard once [lawyer] Camille Vasquez began cross-examination, and called fresh evidence.” 

Reflecting on who can and does bring defamation proceedings, Ms Shah said that “rich, white privileged celebrities have standing for defamation suits all around the world”.

“You have to be entitled to sue for defamation no matter which jurisdiction. It is still the case that rarely do ordinary citizens have firms take upon defamation claims on their behalf,” she said.

While ceding that she does not practise in defamation law, Ms Shah opined that the threshold for damages awarded is “too insignificant, as non-economic loss is capped at $250,000 under the Defamation Act, as compared to US$15 million”.

On another note, Ms Shah mused that it was refreshing to see Ms Vasquez take centre stage during the trial.

“Had Camille Vasquez been practising in Australia, she would never – in 2022 – lead the defamation trial in any Australian state or territory, because of the age and racial discrimination she would face,” she submitted. 

“[It was] empowering to see her win, as a woman of colour. That won’t be happening in Australia any time soon, and cases of such magnitude are rare Down Under.”