Journalist, E. Jean Carroll pursued a claim against former president, Donald Trump, for civil battery and defamation. Ms Carroll alleged that Donald Trump had forcibly raped and groped her in a Manhattan department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. This was denied by Donald Trump who posted on social media calling her case “a complete con job” and “a hoax and a lie”.
E. Jean Carroll battery and defamation trial against Donald Trump
Ms Carroll pursued the claim seeking monetary damages and a retraction of the social media statements.
To succeed in her defamation claim, Ms Carroll would need to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that Donald Trump knew the statement was false when he published it and that he knowingly exposed her to public ridicule. She would also need to prove by clear and convincing evidence the statement was false and made with actual malice.
On 9 May 2023, a jury found Donald Trump liable for sexually assaulting Ms Carroll but not liable for her alleged rape. The jury awarded Ms Carroll $2 million on the battery claim and just under $3 million for her defamation claim.
Following the verdict, Donald Trump posted on Truth Social:
“I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHO THIS WOMAN IS. THIS VERDICT IS A DISGRACE – A CONTINUATION OF THE GREATEST WITCH HUNT OF ALL TIME!”
A spokesman for the Trump campaign has confirmed that Donald Trump is intending to appeal the verdict.
What if this was being dealt with by the English Courts?
If pursued through the English Courts, Ms Carroll would be pursuing a claim under the Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013). She would be pursuing an action in libel (a written defamatory statement).
To be successful under the DA 2013, Ms Carroll would need to prove:
- There was an untrue statement identifying her;
- The statement had been published; and
- The statement was capable of causing serious harm to her reputation.
Arguably, Ms Carroll would be successful in meeting the above criteria. The jury found that the statement published by Donald Trump was untrue and she would therefore meet the first criteria. The statement was published on the social media platform, True Social and accordingly she would meet the second criteria. When successful in her claim, Ms Carroll said:
“I filed this lawsuit against Donald Trump to clear my name and to get my life back. Today, the world finally knows the truth”.
Clearly, Ms Carroll felt that the statements had damaged her reputation and she would therefore arguably meet the third criteria.
In defending the action through the English Courts, Mr Trump would have six potential defences at his disposal, including:
- Truth – the statement must be at least partially true;
- Honest Opinion – the statement is one of opinion and the person making the statement believed it to be true at the time;
- Public Interest – making the statement was in the interest of the public and the individual believed that the publishing of the statement was in the public interest;
- Operators of websites – where an action of defamation is brought against the operator of a website; and
- Reports protected by privilege.
Unless Donald Trump could prove that he believed the statement to be true at the time it was posted, it is unlikely that Donald Trump would be able to rely upon any of the above defences.
How can Nelsons help
Ruby Ashby is an Associate in our expert Dispute Resolution team.
If you need any advice concerning the subjects discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact Ruby or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us