The film
A film named “The Lost King” (2022) about the discovery of the remains of Richard III in Leicester in 2012 has been the subject of a defamation claim. Richard Taylor, who is played by Steve Coogan in the film, is suing Pathe Productions Limited, Baby Cow Productions Limited and Mr Coogan for libel. The case has recently come before the High Court to decide on the meaning of the alleged libel.
The film depicts a character by the name of Philippa Langley who, after attending the performance of a play called “Richard III”, allegedly had visions of the King which ultimately lead her to a local authority carpark in Leicester where she believes the remains might be found. The film depicts Ms Langley subsequently joining the Richard III Society and beginning her search for his remains. Ms Langley then contacts Richard Buckley, an archaeologist at the University of Leicester, who initially dismisses her ideas but later teams up with her in her efforts to locate the remains. The film also conveys Mr Richard Taylor, the registrar of the University of Leicester, advising Ms Langley that her ideas are too risky.
The film goes on to show that Leicester City Council initially approved funding for the search; however, funding was withdrawn when an initial search came to nothing. Ms Langley then obtained funding from the Richard III Society and, on day one of the dig proper, the remains of Richard III were located.
The film then depicts Mr Taylor and the University of Leicester taking the credit for leading the search for the remains at the expense of Ms Langley.
Trial of preliminary issue
In order to prove a claim in defamation, the court must determine the meaning of the words complained of. The natural and ordinary meaning of words is the meaning that the words would convey to the ordinary reasonable reader. It has become increasingly common for the Court to order a trial of preliminary issue on the meaning of alleged defamatory statements, as if the meaning is found not to be defamatory, the entire claim will fail.
Not all cases are suitable for a trial of preliminary issue on meaning and the Court will take into account whether determination of the preliminary issue will:
- Dispose of the case or at least one aspect of it.
- Cut down on the Court resource required for the trial.
- Increase costs or delay the trial.
- Assist with settlement.
A trial of preliminary issue, whether on meaning or otherwise, can be decisive to a case at a very early stage and can cause a Claimant to withdraw their claim or encourage a Defendant to make a settlement offer, dependent on how favourable the judgment on the preliminary issue is to the respective parties. As these types of hearings happen so early on in proceedings, they can cause a trial to be avoided, as well as the associated costs and use of court time – which is an important consideration in any litigation, particularly when considering the overriding objective and the expense of defamation proceedings generally.
Meaning in Mr Taylor’s claim
Mr Taylor’s position on the meaning of the Film is as follows:
- That Mr Taylor dishonestly misrepresented the facts concerning the search for and discovery of Richard III’s remains and that he unjustly concealed Ms Langley’s true role in order to take credit that was rightfully hers for himself and for the University of Leicester.
- That Mr Taylor consistently behaved in a dismissive, patronising and misogynistic way towards Ms Langley.
- That Mr Taylor acted in a devious and manipulative way in order to frustrate Ms Langley’s wish that the Richard III’s tomb should show a royal coat of arms and arranged for the University of Leicester to re-employ the archaeologist Richard Buckley in order to control the reburial and prevent a royal coat of arms being placed on the tomb. Further, that Mr Taylor then behaved towards Ms Langley in a deeply unpleasant and disablist manner by publicly mimicking Richard III’s “hunchback” and equating his physical deformity with his wickedness/moral failings.
My Taylor’s position was that these are statements of facts which are defamatory at common law. The Defendants for their part accepted that the pleaded meanings were defamatory at common law but that these were not the true meanings of the depiction of the story in the film.
The Defendants said that the true meaning of the film was (a) that Mr Taylor, acting on behalf of the University, exaggerated the University’s role in searching for and locating Ricard III’s remains and marginalised Ms Langley’s role and (b) that at times Mr Taylor was unduly dismissive of Ms Taylor and patronising towards her.
Decision on meaning and potential impact of the claim
In the Judgment handed down by His Honour Judge Lewis, he determined the meaning of the stings as follows:
- Mr Taylor knowingly misrepresented facts to the media and the public concerning the search for, and discovery of, Richard III’s remains. He did so by presenting a false account of the University’s role in the project, and marginalising Ms Langley’s role, despite her major contribution to the find.
- Mr Taylor’s conduct towards Ms Langley in respect of the project was smug, unduly dismissive and patronising.
HJH Lewis determined that (1) was a statement of fact and (2) was an expression of opinion. The Defendants accepted that (1) was defamatory of Mr Taylor at common law and HJH Lewis determined that (2) was defamatory at common law. Assuming that Mr Taylor can establish to the court’s satisfaction that the found defamatory statements caused him serious harm pursuant to s.1 of the Defamation Act 2013, the Defendants now have the burden of establishing that they have defences which justify having made the statements.
In other words, advantage Mr Taylor…
The full Judgment can be located here.