CTV Your Morning Interview regarding Johnny Depp and Amber Heard

0:02
[Music]

0:08
other news that we are following of

0:10
course is the verdict that a virginia

0:12
jury ruled in favor of actor johnny depp

0:15
in a libel lawsuit that was of course he

0:16
brought against his ex-wife amber heard

0:19
the jury awarded debt more than 10

0:20
million dollars in effect ruling that

0:22
heard did indeed defame him when she

0:25
wrote an article for the washington post

0:26
back in 2018 that article described

0:29
herself as a victim of domestic abuse

0:31
depp’s name was not mentioned in the

0:33
article so joining us for some analysis

0:35
this morning is tanya walker of walker

0:37
law corporation welcome back to your

0:38
morning good to have you here thanks

0:40
thank you for having me great to see you

0:42
what did johnny depp need to prove in

0:43
order to obtain a successful ruling

0:46
he had to prove that he never assaulted

0:48
her that the article defamed him that it

0:50
was written with malice and that it

0:52
damaged his reputation and because he

0:55
was not named specifically in the

0:57
article how is he still able to get a

1:00
successful ruling

1:02
well

1:02
my caveat is i’m licensed in ontario so

1:05
this is my knowledge of ontario a lot
1:07
but i would think it might apply to
1:08
virginia law you what a reasonable
1:10
person would think after they’ve read
1:12
the article what would they conclude um
1:14
even though he’s not mentioned someone
1:15
may conclude that uh he was the one who
1:18
caused the domestic abuse
1:20
especially since there was already a
1:22
ruling and misheard uh favor um in
1:24
england by that time yeah depp lost a
1:26
similar lawsuit in the uk against a
1:28
british tabloid who called him quote a
1:30
wife beater what was different about
1:32
this lawsuit that may have led to a
1:34
different result
1:36
well three things i i noted the first is
1:38
that the law for defamation is different
1:41
in commonwealth countries such as canada
1:42
uk in comparison to united states so in
1:45
the uk you have to show that in canada
1:48
you just basically show that you’re
1:49
defamed and it’s up to the person who’s
1:51
accused of defaming you to defend
1:52
themselves the united states mr depp had
1:55
had more responsibility to prove his
1:58
case the second is in the uk the trial
2:00
was by a judge where in the united
2:02
states it was a trial by a jury and so
2:04
the judge didn’t allow certain witnesses
2:06
to testify believe certain witnesses
2:08
were witnesses were not relevant and the
2:11
last what i thought was very important
2:13
is that mr depp sued the newspaper
2:16
company in the uk while in the united
2:18
states he sued his ex-wife and
2:23
newspaper companies media publications
2:25
have a little bit more defenses
2:26
available to them when it comes to
2:27
defamation
2:28
so i i believe those are the three kind
2:30
of fundamental differences between the
2:32
two countries
2:33
amber heard released a statement on
2:35
twitter giving her thoughts on the
2:36
verdict here some of what she had to say
2:38
i’m even more disappointed with what
2:40
this verdict means for other women it’s
2:42
a setback it sets back the clock to a
2:44
time when a woman who spoke up and spoke
2:46
out could publicly be humiliated it sets
2:49
back the idea that violence against
2:50
women is to be taken seriously
2:53
what are your thoughts on a precedent
2:54
being set concerning future public
2:56
claims of abuse against high-profile
2:58
people
3:00
um i don’t really think this is a
3:01
precedent i don’t know if anyone is
3:02
going to appeal in the united kingdom
3:05
she was essentially successful even
3:06
though the newspaper was sued and
3:09
there was an appeal that mr depp wanted
3:11
to do but it was denied
3:13
he didn’t have the right to do complete
3:16
or argue that appeal so i don’t know if
3:18
this is really precedent at this time
3:19
because someone may appeal and it may go
3:21
all the way up to maybe the supreme
3:23
court i’m not too sure um i can
3:25
understand her disappointment um but i
3:27
don’t think it’s essentially a precedent
3:30
that should dissuade anyone from
3:33
reporting any type of abuse that they
3:34
may feel that they’ve had experienced
3:36
tandy i always hope to bring great
3:38
context and understanding to these cases
3:39
thanks so much
3:41
thank you very much
3:46
you