To establish the defence of justification, News Group Newspapers had to prove that Ms. Heard's accusations - which The Sun published - were substantially true. The level of proof was exactly the same as if the action had been brought directly against Ms. Heard, namely on a balance of probabilities ("the civil test"). The High Court found that the majority of the accusations were substantially true. The Court of Appeal did not overturn. As for Ms. Heard's prospects in the appeal against the US decision I have no idea, and to be honest am not really that interested. My opinion remains that in this type of case I would rather trust the judgement of a professional tribunal than that of a jury. But whatever Ms. Heard's prospects, I disagree with the OP that she should be labelled an "evil bitch".
Amber Heard us a lying abuser who assaulted her husband and made up false accusations of the worst kind against him in order to ruin his life. She has been proven to have lied many many times under oath and to have falsified evidence. She is an evil person who deserves to be punished to the full extent of the law for committing perjury
Meanwhile, for anyone wondering why I set so much store in these cases being determined by professional judges (who can exclude irrelevant matters thrown up in front of juries) here is an excellent explanation, quoting one of our foremost defamation lawyers, Mark Stephens. Depp-Heard trial: Why Johnny Depp lost in the UK but won in the US - BBC News
Maybe so but again I'll say that amber Heard concocted a boat load of evidence and lied under oath. There is zero evidence other than amber Heards sister (who has herself been beaten by amber Heard) claiming to be a witness. Regardless of whether it is a judge or a jury there is absolutely no denying that the evidence presented by amber Heard was all completely falsified. So when you can see that the evidence is false does it matter if you're a judge or a jury? Besides I don't think the UK judge is exactly reputable. Didn't he lock a man up for a year and an half for a crime he didn't commit because he instructed the jury wrong or something? And he's hardly impartial, his wife is the founder of a women's rights organisation and his son works for Rupert Murdoch, the man who's company was being sued. The article was written by a colleague of his son at talksport radio. A fair trial? I don't think so
You didn't need to be a professional to see that she had zero evidence and was herself an abuser. There are no doubt cases where a professional is needed, this wasn't one.
I've said it before. I'm not a firefighter but if I saw the fire brigade spraying petrol over a burning building I'd feel confident to say that despite being professionals they were wrong
I leave you to your own view. I would be more questioning, and I see little to admire in either party. But I remain convinced that where people form preconceptions according to the media accounts they have read, it is safer for a professional tribunal to adjudicate in matters such as these.
I haven't studied it. Nor do I intend to as I have no interest in either party. I have more interest in the processes in the respective jurisdictions, which I believe affected the outcomes. But my main point in this thread was that I believe it wrong to make the kind of comments which you did about Ms. Heard in your original post, whatever your view of her actions. I believe debate and comment should be more temperate, especially given the times we live in.
With all due respect if you haven't looked at any of the evidence I think you should refrain from stating that the outcome of one court case is right and the other is wrong. Also false accusations ruin lives. This evil woman not only made false allegations but went to extreme lengths to falsify evidence against her victim. She then staged photoshoots with the media (whilst 'wearing' fake bruises created by makeup) and wrote an article in a national newspaper in order to ruin that life further. Yet I'm out of order for calling her evil? Sorry but it's true
I think you'll find that at post #62 I said "the verdict of the American system has to be respected." Nevertheless, I prefer the presumption in favour of a professional tribunal hearing such cases which operates in this country.
