Richard Taylor the former Deputy Registrar for the University of Leicester pursued libel proceedings against three individuals responsible for the production and publication of the film, “The Lost King”.
The film is a dramatisation of the discovery of the remains of Richard III in 2012 in a car park in Leicester. The story is told from the perspective of Philippa Langley, who was shown in the film as the driving force behind the search that led to the discovery of the remains. Mr Taylor was portrayed in a negative light throughout the film. Whilst this was accepted by both parties, the parties could not agree on precisely what the film suggested about Mr Taylor.
In December 2023, Nicklin J directed that there should be a trial of preliminary issues to determine the natural and ordinary meaning of the film, whether such a meaning is defamatory at common law, and whether and to what extent the meaning determined is a statement of fact or opinion.
Court proceedings
The trial of the preliminary issues was heard by His Honour Judge Lewis on 14 June 2024. HHJ Lewis first considered how to approach the film, noting that the claimant had provided transcripts of the key pieces of dialogue. HHJ Lewis referred to the case of Millett v Corbyn [2021] EWCA Civ 567 in which Warby LJ confirmed that the approach to be taken when deciding on the meaning of a broadcast is to not study a transcript as it “cannot tell you how the words are spoken, in what tone, or with what emphasis” but instead to watch and listen to the broadcast as a whole. Warby LJ expressed the importance of watching the broadcast no more than once and being careful not to over analyse the content.
This is the approach that HHJ Lewis decided to adopt. He confirmed that he would focus on the impression that the film left on the hypothetical reasonable viewer rather than placing focus on specific words or scenes.
The claimant pleaded that the film meant that:
- The claimant had been dishonest and tried to take credit for the project himself thus concealing Philippa Langley’s true role;
- The claimant had consistently behaved in a dismissive, patronising, and misogynistic way towards Philippa Langley; and
- The claimant had frustrated the condition set by Philippa Langley for Richard III’s reburial (i.e. the tomb should have shown the royal coat of arms) and had behaved in an unpleasant and disablist manner by mimicking Richard III’s “hunchback”.
The defendant disagreed with the above and argued that the film actually meant that:
- The claimant acting on behalf of the University had publicly exaggerated the University’s role in the search and discovery of the remains; and
- The claimant, at times, had acted in a way that was unduly dismissive and patronising to Philippa Langley.
HHJ Lewis, started off his judgment by clarifying that:
“The hypothetical reasonable viewer would have appreciated that the Film was neither a documentary, nor a work of fiction. It was a dramatisation of events, and the viewer would appreciate that the dialogue in the Film was not a verbatim record of what occurred. The hypothetical reasonable viewer would have watched it in one go, for entertainment. They would not take notes, nor rewind or seek to cross-check what has been said.”
HHJ Lewis, agreed with the claimant as to the first and second meanings. Although, he did not accept that the hypothetical reasonable viewer would have come away thinking that the claimant was misogynistic or sexist. HHJ Lewis did however not agree with the claimant’s third meaning. He took the view that the viewer had been told very clearly in the film that the University’s burial committee had taken the decision about whether the tomb should show a royal coat of arms. The viewer therefore would not think that this was down to the claimant (or the University).
HHJ Lewis ultimately decided that the natural and ordinary meaning of the film was that:
- The claimant had knowingly misrepresented facts to the media and to the public concerning the search for, and discovery of, Richard III’s remains; and
- The claimant’s conduct towards Philippa Langley was smug, unduly dismissive, and patronising.
He clarified that 1 above was a statement of fact, and that 2 was an expression of opinion. Both meanings were found to be defamatory at common law.
Comment
The above is a good indication of how the Court will consider the ordinary and natural meaning in respect of a film based on real life events. It is a reminder that the Court will consider a film as a whole rather than simply studying a transcript.
How can we help?
Ruby Ashby is a Senior Associate in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in data breach claims, inheritance and Trust disputes and defamation claims.
If you need any advice, 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