Steve Coogan’s film The Lost King is defamatory, according to a judgment handed down last June.
Former university director sues over film depiction
Richard Stewart Taylor, a former director at the University of Leicester is suing the film’s producers. Mr Taylor has brought this defamation claim due to its depiction of his and the University’s role in the discovery of King Richard III’s remains in a car park in Leicester.
Mr Taylor asserted that the film minimised and distorted Philippa Langley (the Protagonist), who is the archaeologist behind the discovery. He also argued that the film portrayed him in a dismissive, patronising and misogynistic way. The Defendants argued that the film was a statement of opinion – portraying Ms Langley’s “story” – which is a full defence to defamation pursuant to s. 3(2) of the Defamation Act 2013.
Artistic license vs filmmaker responsibility
This legal confrontation brings into focus the boundaries between artistic license and the responsibility of filmmakers depicting real-life events. A comparable lawsuit commenced against Netflix due to its portrayal of people and events in the hit show Baby Reindeer.
Importance of TPI in assessing deformation
The court ordered a Trial of Preliminary Issues (‘TPI’) to determine the question
of meaning in this case. Specifically in relation to whether the statements Mr Taylor complained of can be considered defamatory.
TPIs are useful mechanisms to clarify legal boundaries and address actual issues in dispute early on in a claim. A party can apply for a TPI or the court can order one on its own volition, pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules 3.1(2)(l). TPIs are common in defamation claims, especially in cases where artistic interpretation is challenged by factual representation. If there is no defamatory meaning, then there is simply no defamation claim to pursue. As such, a TPI can provide a quick resolution and significantly reduce legal costs.
In making his decision, Judge Lewis considered:
- the meaning of the words complained of from the perspective of the hypothetical viewer.
- the difference between allegations of fact and opinion using the principles set out in Koutsogiannis v Random House Group Ltd [2021].
The court ultimately found that the statements in the film which Mr Taylor’s complained of had defamatory meaning from the perspective of a hypothetical viewer. This is in both the portrayal of certain factual events and also the presentation of Mr Taylor’s conduct. The case will therefore continue to a full trial.
The judgment is an important reminder to publishers of the limits of artistic licence when basing content on real-life. It also highlights the importance of TPIs in deciding key issues at an early stage. TPIs can be crucial to defamation cases, underlining the legal threshold for what constitutes as scandalmongering early on. It should be noted that TPIs are not limited to defamation claims, and Taylor Hampton was involved in a recent successful TPI in the ongoing phone-hacking litigation against News Group Newspapers.