Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard

[Mike & Van]

Exactly. People are reacting as though these are criminal cases with prosecutions brought by the state. They are two people having a tiff.

And that is exactly why the courts time shouldn't be wasted on them.

 

[Mike & Van]

These cases are civil claims, such as you or I would have a right to bring if we had a grievance. Public interest just doesn’t come into it.

What I was trying to say was they are a waste of our courts time and resources, i think here in the UK we need to seriously look at our defamation laws, they are why we the top destination for people to bring libel cases. Mind you possibly counter to my argument, I did come across this concerning libel and publishers (Newspapers largely). Public interest defence to defamation clarified (pinsentmasons.com)

"Under the Defamation Act 2013, claimants must demonstrate that the publication of a statement has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to their reputation in order to bring a claim for defamation against the publisher of the statement.

However, section 4 of the Act provides publishers with a defence against such claims where the statement complained of was, or formed part of, a statement on a matter of public interest; and the person accused of defamation reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest."

 

[Fatmarley]

 

[Darmok]

Johnny Depp buys ‘quirky items’ from Lincolnshire antiques centre

Three guitars, a skull-encrusted vase and an easel among items bought by the Hollywood actor at Hemswell Antiques Centres

Johnny Depp buys ‘quirky items’ from Lincolnshire antiques centre | Johnny Depp | The Guardian