On 08/03/2025 10:52, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 20:10:51 +0000, Simon Parker
<simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 07/03/2025 16:08, Martin Harran wrote:
I've just watched Toxic Town, the Netflix drama about the Corby toxic
waste case, told through the eyes of 3 of the mothers who took the
case against Corby Borough Council. Some of the characters in it are
presented in a far from flattering way; I don't want to give examples
to avoid spoilers for anyone who hasn't watched it yet. Some of these
characters are composites of several people involved in the original
case but some of them are clearly identifiable individuals.
When real-life dramas like this are produced, do the people in the
original story have any legal comeback if they feel they have been
portrayed unfairly with possible reputational damage?
I commend to you the case of Taylor v Pathe Productions Limited and
others [2024] EWHC 1475 (KB) [^1].
Pathe Productions, Baby Cow Productions (Steve Coogan's production
company) and Steve Coogan, (writer and producer), made a film, "The Lost
King", about the discovery over the remains of Richard III in a car park
in Leicester in 2012.
The film follows Phillipa Langley and her search for the skeleton but
portrayed Richard Taylor, formerly Deputy Registrar of the University of
Leicester in a manner described as "devious" and "weasel-like". In
addition, he was presented as being "dismissive, patronising and
misogynistic" towards Ms Langley.
In defending the claim, Mr Coogan and the two production companies
claimed, "It is a feature film, not a documentary. It would be clear to
the ordinary reasonable viewer that the film is not a documentary, it is
a dramatisation of events."
The judgment linked below is the ruling on the preliminary issues.
(Spoiler Alert: the film was considered defamatory as, (per para [68] of
the judgment), "The character Mr Taylor was portrayed throughout the
Film in a negative light. At no point was he shown in a way that could
be described as positive, or even neutral. Whilst an individual scene
may not in itself cross the threshold of seriousness, taken together the
Film makes a powerful comment about the claimant and the way he
conducted himself when undertaking a senior professional role for a
university. The poor way in which he was depicted as behaving towards
Ms Langley was contrary to common shared values of our society and would
have been recognised as such by the hypothetical reasonable viewer.")
The short answer to your question is: Yes.
On the other side of the pond, we have similar with the Baby Reindeer
case, (although it being America the damages claimed are nonsensical).
Regards
S.P.
[^1]
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Final-Taylor-v-Pathe.pdf
Thanks for that.
A standard defence to libel and slander is that what was written or
said was true. As the defence didn't seem to try to use it in that
case, I'm guessing they knew they had gone too far in their portrayal.
Defamation law is complicated. In the Taylor case (the alleged
defamation in connection with the discovery of the corpse of Richard
III) what we saw in the June 2024 judgment was the preliminary issue of
whether or not the statements were of fact or of opinion (opinions are
not generally actionable) and whether or not the statements were
defamatory. To say they are defamatory is not the end of the matter -
all available defences can come into play at a later trial, if the case
is not settled out of court. So the defendants can still argue that
their portrayal of the claimant was essentially true.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)