Richard III and Baby Reindeer: when television becomes a courtroom drama

You may have read recently about the drama watched on your television screens ending up in court rooms. On 14 June 2024, judgment was handed down on a preliminary issue in a defamation claim relating to the film ‘The Lost King’, which is about the discovery of the remains of Richard III by Phillipa Langley. You may also have read about the Netflix drama Baby Reindeer that continues to hit the headlines.

The Lost King: Richard Stewart Taylor v (1) Pathe Productions Limited (2) Baby Cow Productions Limited and (3) Stephen John Coogan [2024].

The recent judgment follows what is known as a ‘preliminary issues’ hearing. This is an early determination of a single issue, and in this case, the Court was asked to consider whether the words complained of were defamatory or not. Once a preliminary issue is determined, it will either resolve the case entirely (such as to determine that a meaning is not defamatory) or shape the course of the litigation by identifying the key issues that the Court must determine and the parties address.

The claimant in the case is Richard Taylor. Mr Taylor is the former Director of Corporate Affairs and former Deputy Registrar for the University of Leicester. The first and second defendants in the case produced and published the film The Lost King. The third defendant, the comedian Steve Coogan, was the co-author of the screenplay and Mr Coogan appeared in the cast.

The court was tasked to determine the ‘single and ordinary meaning’ of the words complained of. This means that the court is asked to determine how the hypothetical, reasonable viewer would understand the words complained about.

The court stated that the hypothetical, reasonable viewer would not necessarily know about Shakespeare’s work and the wider debate about Richard III.

The judge did spend some time deciding if the film was a film or television programme. An interesting point the judge made was that films and television programmes are treated the same in law, even if some of the court’s previous decisions were about television programmes. The judge did explain that both parties acknowledge that the judge must base his decision on the film itself, because the transcript does not convey visual messages and the sounds used in the film itself. The transcript also doesn’t show how scenes have been edited to show the character’s general demeanour, tone of voice, intonation and emphasis of expression used by actors.

The claimant’s pleaded case was that there were three statements of fact and that they are defamatory at common law. The claimant’s case was that the film meant:

a. “The Claimant dishonestly misrepresented the facts concerning the search for and discovery of Richard III’s remains to the media and the public. He did so by deviously manipulating the public presentation of information about the find, so as unjustly to conceal Philippa Langley’s true role, and to take credit that was rightfully hers, for himself and the University of Leicester.

b. The Claimant consistently behaved in a dismissive, patronising and misogynistic way towards Ms Langley.

c. The Claimant wrongly set out to frustrate a condition set by Ms Langley for Richard III’s reburial, that the tomb show a royal coat of arms in order to acknowledge that he had been a legitimate king, not a usurper. However, the Claimant again acted in a devious and manipulative way in order to frustrate Ms Langley by ignoring her emails on the subject and arranging for the University of Leicester to gain control over Richard Buckley by re-employing him and granting him a doctorate for no other apparent reason than to ensure his cooperation with the University, to control the reburial and prevent a royal coat of arms being placed on his tomb. In explaining why this decision had been reached to Ms Langley, the Claimant behaved in a deeply unpleasant and disablist manner by publicly mimicking Richard III’s “hunchback” and equating his physical deformity with his wickedness/moral failings.”

The judge said that the hypothetical viewer would have “appreciated” that the film was not a documentary nor a work of fiction. The court stated that the hypothetical, reasonable viewer would have known it was a dramatisation of real life events, and that the dialogue wouldn’t have been quoted word for word. The film would have been watched in one go and for entertainment purposes, rather than educational or learning value.

The court held that the film was (or is) defamatory of the claimant and that he was portrayed throughout the film in a negative light. The court decided that the film , taken as a whole, makes a powerful comment about how the claimant conducted himself when undertaking a senior role at the university and the poor way he is alleged to have behaved towards Ms Langley. The court stated that the hypothetical reasonable viewer would recognise this. In the circumstances, the Claimant succeeded in the preliminary issue that the film is defamatory of him.

Now that the preliminary issues hearing has been decided, the case proceeds to trial.

Baby Reindeer

According to news reports, Fiona Harvey is seeking damages of $170 million in legal proceedings commenced in the US relating to the Netflix drama Baby Reindeer. Many may have seen or heard about Baby Reindeer, written by and which stars Richard Gadd. It is reported that the fictionalised drama is based on real life experiences of Gadd’s relationship with a stalker.

There had been widespread speculation of who the stalker in Baby Reindeer might be. Fiona Harvey came forward in an interview with Piers Morgan to vehemently deny that she was the stalker and has been the subject of online attacks following the drama airing.

The TV news channel Sky News reports that Netflix told them “"We intend to defend this matter vigorously and to stand by Richard Gadd's right to tell his story."

It is also reported that Gadd asked viewers not to speculate about the real people who inspired the drama, and that he had said that the character “Martha’s” identity was so well disguised that she would not recognise herself. Unfortunately, that does not appear to have stopped online speculation.

This litigation is being brought in the US and we wait to see how the case might unfold.