Depp II v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anor

This is the trial of a libel claim brought by the American actor commonly known as Johnny Depp.

The 1^st Defendant is the publisher of The Sun newspaper and also the owner and publisher of the associated website www.thesun.co.uk (‘the website’). The claim concerns an article first published on the website on 27^th April 2018 with the headline, ‘GONE POTTY How Can J K Rowling be “genuinely happy” casting wife beater Johnny Depp in the new Fantastic Beasts film?’.

The article was written by the 2^nd Defendant who is described as the Executive Editor. The full text of the article (as it first appeared on the website) is set out in the Appendix to this judgment (numbers have been added to paragraphs and photo captions for ease of reference).

From about 7.58am on 28^th April 2018 the headline of the website article was changed to, ‘GONE POTTY How Can J K Rowling be “genuinely happy” casting Johnny Depp in the new Fantastic Beasts film after assault claim?’ (‘the amended headline’). The online article was otherwise the same as it had been.

On 28^th April 2018 the hard copy edition of The Sun included a substantially article under the amended headline.

The claim form was issued on 1^st June 2018 by the Claimant’s then solicitors, Brown Rudnick LLP. Particulars of Claim followed on 13^th June 2018.

The natural and ordinary meaning attributed to each of the articles was as follows,

Since the Claimant has referred collectively to ‘the articles’, I shall do so, too, save where it is necessary to distinguish between them.

The Particulars of Claim plead that the publication of the articles has caused serious harm to his personal and professional reputation. He asks the court to draw this inference from:

The Particulars of Claim also plead these matters in support of the claim for damages:

The Defendants served the original version of their Defence on 11^th July 2018. The most recent version is the Re-Amended Defence (‘RAD’) served on 6^th March 2020. Unless indicated otherwise, references to the Defence are to the RAD.

A notable feature of the RAD is that the Defendants rely on the defence of truth in Defamation Act 2013 s.2 in the following meaning,

The Defendants plead in paragraph 8a,

There then follow particulars of 14 incidents (or sometimes a series of incidents). It will be necessary to return to these in due course.

There is a confidential schedule to the RAD which pleads further details of violence against Ms Heard by the Claimant.

The Claimant initially served a Reply on 20^th July 2018. The current version, responding to what was then a draft of the RAD, was served on 25^th February 2020 (the

As is mentioned in the RAD, Ms Heard and the Claimant separated on or around 22^nd May 2016. They subsequently divorced in California, Los Angeles County. The parties reached an agreement which was embodied in a ‘marital settlement agreement’ dated 15^th August 2016.

On 29^th November 2018 the Defendants applied for a stay of the present action on the grounds that they wished to rely on the evidence of Ms Heard but she was inhibited from assisting them because of confidentiality restrictions in the divorce agreement.

On 18^th December 2018 Ms Heard wrote an article in the Washington Post with the headline, ‘I spoke up against sexual violence – and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change.’

As a result of this, in March 2019 the Claimant sued Ms Heard for libel in the court of Fairfax County, Virginia, USA (‘the Virginia libel action’). That litigation is ongoing. I was told that the trial of the Virginia libel action is not likely to take place before January 2021.

On 27^th February 2019 Nicklin J. refused the Defendants’ application for a stay of the present action (see [2019] EWHC 1113 (QB)).

On 11^th February 2020 the Claimant changed his solicitors. Thereafter, they have been Schillings LLP. The Claimant served notice of this change on 11^th February 2020.

I heard a pre-trial review (‘PTR’) on 26^th February 2020. At that stage the trial was due to start on 23^rd March 2020 with a 10-day time estimate. The principal issue which was debated before me was the Defendants’ application for disclosure. A number of categories of documents was sought including documents produced by either side in the Virginia libel action. I reserved my decision.

I handed down judgment on 6^th March 2020 (see [2020] EWHC 505 (QB)). I ordered the Claimant to give disclosure of certain documents. So far as the Virginia libel action was concerned, I recognised that the judge in Virginia had made a ‘protective order’ on 25^th September 2019 which had allowed either party to designate documents as confidential. The protective order had allowed the party concerned to permit documents to be used for purposes other than the Virginia libel action. My disclosure order said, in relation to documents in the Virginia libel action, that, if Ms Heard gave such a release, then (see paragraph 3 of my disclosure order),

I made two orders on 6^th March 2020. One concerned disclosure (‘the 6^th March 2020 disclosure order’). The other concerned other directions (‘the 6^th March 2020 directions order’). So far as the precise terms of these orders had not been agreed, I gave the reasons for my decision in writing (also dated 6^th March 2020).

I gave a further judgment on 18^th March 2020 regarding the Defendants’ application for disclosure of certain medical records (see [2020] EWHC 1149 (QB))

On 10^th March 2020 I heard an application by the Claimant (issued that day) for an extension of time within which to make disclosure of the documents from the Virginia libel action and which came within r.31.6. By my order of that day, I granted a short extension (until 13^th March 2020), but, since the trial was still at that stage due to start on 23^rd March 2020, I said (in paragraph (10) of the order) that the claim would be struck out if that, and a number of other parts of my order of 6^th March 2020, were not complied with.

On 20^th March 2020 I vacated the trial date of 23^rd March and said the trial would instead take place in July 2020 with an estimated length of 15 days (instead of the previous 10-day estimate). I also made provision for the costs of the Defendants’ disclosure application to be determined in writing on the basis of written submissions. I gave my reasons for vacating the trial date in an unreserved judgment (see [2020] EWHC 1150 (QB)).

On 8^th April 2020 I heard an application that parts of the trial should take place in private (and for other associated orders). I granted the application for reasons which I gave in an unreserved judgment (see [2020] EWHC 1618 (QB)).

I determined the costs of the Defendants’ application for disclosure in my order of 15^th June (sealed on 16^th June 2020).

On 13^th May 2020 I heard another pre-trial review. The particular issue of controversy was whether the Claimant should have permission to rely on the evidence of a mechanic, David Killacky, and Kate James, who had been a personal assistant for Ms Heard until she had been dismissed in February 2015. For reasons which I gave in my reserved judgment (see [2020] EWHC 1237 (QB)) I refused permission in relation to Mr Killacky and allowed it in relation to parts of Ms James’ statement.

The Defendants applied for a declaration that the claim was struck out because of what was said to be the Claimant’s incomplete compliance with my disclosure order regarding the Virginia libel action. In particular, it was said that the Claimant had failed to disclose a series of texts between him and his assistant, Nathan Holmes, which were referred to as ‘the Australian drugs texts’.

In my judgment on 29^th June 2020 I found that the Claimant had been in breach of my disclosure order, but, since Mr Sherborne, the Claimant’s counsel, had indicated his wish to apply for relief against sanctions, I did not make the declaration which the Defendants had sought (see [2020] EWHC 1689 (QB)).

That same day, the Claimant issued his application notice for relief against sanctions. I reserved my decision which I gave on 2^nd July 2020 (see [2020] EWHC 1734 (QB)). I

On 29^th June I had also heard an application by the Claimant that Ms Heard should make third party disclosure pursuant to CPR r.31.17. In my judgment of 2^nd July, I refused this application.

The Claimant sought a direction that Ms Heard should be excluded from the court room until she gave her evidence. I dealt with this matter on the basis of written submissions which I received on 3^rd July 2020. On 4^th July 2020 I gave a written decision (with reasons) refusing the request.

The parties had arranged for transcribers to prepare a daily transcription of the proceedings. It was convenient for the transcribers to be located at two sites away from the Royal Courts of Justice. On the transcribers giving appropriate undertakings to the court, I agreed that a feed from the RCJ could be passed to these two addresses (which were both in England) and I designated them as additional places where the trial should be regarded as taking place.

At common law it was a defence to a claim for libel to prove that the libel was ‘justified’. The common law defence was modified by the Defamation Act 1952, but it was abolished by s.2(4) of the Defamation Act 2013. The 2013 Act substituted a statutory defence of ‘truth’. This is defined in Defamation Act 2013 s.2(1) which says:

There is further elaboration in s.2(2) and (3) which say,

As Defamation Act 2013 s.2(1) makes clear, it is for a defendant to prove that the libel was substantially true. The burden of proof therefore rests on the defendant. That was also the case when the common law defence of justification existed.

As for the standard of proof, the starting point is that these are civil proceedings and in civil proceedings the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities i.e. is it more probable than not that the article was substantially true in the meaning that it bore? In this case, is it more likely than not that the claimant did what the articles alleged? The common law knows only two standards of proof: beyond reasonable doubt (or, as it is now put, so that the decision maker is sure) which applies in criminal cases and certain other immaterial situations and the balance of probabilities (which applies in civil

Although there is a single and unvarying standard of proof in civil proceedings, the evidence which is required to satisfy it may vary according to the circumstances. In Re D [2008] 1 WLR 1499 at [27] Lord Carswell approved what had been said by Richards LJ in R (N) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region) [2006] QB 468 at [62] who had said,

Simon J. also quoted the same comments by Richards LJ when considering the defence of justification in the course of his judgment on a libel claim – see Hunt v Times Newspapers Ltd. [2013] EWHC 1868 (QB). He said (at [76]),

Simon J’s judgment concerned the common law, but neither party before me suggested that a different approach was required in this regard in consequence of the replacement of the common law defence of justification with the statutory defence of truth and see Bokhova v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2018] EWHC 2032 (QB), [2019] QB 861 at

Paragraph 8.a of the RAD reads

As to this, the Claimant responds in the RAR,

The Defendants plead,

The Claimant replies in 2.2.A of the RAR

The Defendants say in RAD paragraph 8.a.2

The Claimant replies in paragraph 2.2.B of the RAR,

This paragraph reads,

The Claimant replies in paragraph 2.2.B of the RAR,

The Defendants plead in paragraph 8.a.3 and 8.a.4,

The Claimant replies in the RAR paragraph 2.2.C and 2.2.D,

Paragraph 8.a.5 pleads,

The Claimant replies at RAR paragraph 2.2E,

Paragraph 8.a.6 says,

The Claimant replied in paragraph 2.2.F of the RAR,

Paragraph 8.a.7 of the RAD says,

The Claimant replies at RAR paragraph 2.2G,

The RAD paragraphs 8.a.8 - 8.a.11 plead,

The Claimant replied at paragraphs 2.2.H and 2.2.I of the RAR,

Paragraph 8.a.12 of the RAD pleads,

The Claimant replies in the RAR paragraph 2.2J,

RAD paragraph 8.a.13 says,

The Claimant replies at RAR paragraph 2.2K,

The RAD pleads at paragraph 8.a.14,

The Claimant’s reply is at RAR paragraph 2.2L,

The RAD paragraphs 8.a.15 - 8.a.20 plead,

The Claimant replied at RAR at paragraph 2.2M which says,

The RAD paragraphs 8.b - 8.c say,

The Claimant’s reply is at paragraphs 2.3 – 2.7B of the RAR which say,

Paragraphs 8.d – 8.o of the RAD plead,

The Claimant’s reply is at RAR paragraphs 2.8 – 2.12 which say,

I can take this briefly since by the close of the trial there was little dispute. A libel claimant must, in brief, prove that defamatory material has been published by the defendant of and concerning him and in a form that has a degree of permanence. The common law meaning of ‘defamatory’ has now been supplemented by Defamation Act 2013 s.1. For an individual, such as Mr Depp, s.1(1) provides that

Although the RAD did not admit that the articles which the Defendants had published had had or was likely to have this effect, in her written closing submissions, Ms Wass Q.C. accepted that it had.

I have set out above the meaning which the Claimant alleged the articles bore. Since the Defendants rely on the defence of truth, they, too, were obliged to set out the meaning which they alleged was true and they did so.

The principles to be applied in determining the meaning of a publication were summarised by Nicklin J. in Koutsogiannis v Random House Group Ltd. [2019] EWHC 48 (QB) at [12].

I have already noted that neither party sought to distinguish between the articles. The notable difference was that the original online article in its headline referred to the Claimant as a ‘wife beater’. The amended online article and the print version instead referred to the ‘assault claim’. However, as I have said, neither party treated the differences as material.

As the Defendants submitted in their skeleton argument, it was therefore common ground that the words meant:

It is worth emphasising that the Defendants therefore accepted that the words meant that Mr Depp had done these things. In the vernacular of libel actions, there was no dispute that these were Chase level 1 meanings (imputing guilt of the wrongdoing) and not merely Chase level 2 (reasonable grounds to suspect) or Chase level 3 (grounds to investigate) or some other intermediate meaning.

The Defendants analysed the remaining differences between the parties as follows:

I agree that this is an accurate distillation of the differences in the competing meanings.

Understandably, these subtle differences in meaning did not feature large in oral submissions at trial. So far as they are significant, I accept the Defendants’ submissions and I find that the words complained of in the articles had the meanings for which the

As I have explained, the trial was originally scheduled to take place in March 2020. It had to be adjourned, principally because of the coronavirus pandemic. It was rescheduled for July.

In July, the pandemic still caused restrictions. In particular, government advice was that in enclosed spaces people should be at least 2 metres apart. That meant that in the court room where I sat (court 13), even with the opening of the public gallery, there was not sufficient space for all the parties and lawyers who wished to attend. For them, an additional court room was made available. Three further additional court rooms were made available for the press and public to attend (all but the parts of the trial which I had decided should be in private). I therefore had the use of five courtrooms in all. Each of these was linked to court 13 so that in the spill over courtrooms what took place in court 13 could be seen and heard. In addition, some of the witnesses gave evidence via video-link from Los Angeles, Chicago, the Bahamas and Australia. I was very grateful to Her Majesty’s Court and Tribunal Service for the very considerable efforts which all of this entailed. That was in addition to work undertaken by the parties to arrange for the witnesses to give evidence in this manner. Again, the court is grateful for their assistance.

The following people gave evidence on the Claimant’s behalf: Mr Depp himself (in person), Melissa Saenz (an officer with the Los Angeles Police Department) (via videolink from Los Angeles), Stephen Deuters (formerly the Claimant’s personal assistant, presently the European President of his production company, Infinitum Nihil) (in person), Edward White (one of the Claimant’s accountants) (via video-link from Los Angeles), Trinity Esparza (the owner of the company which provided concierge services at the Eastern Columbia Building, South Broadway, Los Angeles) (via videolink from Los Angeles), Malcolm Connolly (one of the Claimant’s security guards) (in person), Tara Roberts (the Claimant’s estate manager for his property in the Bahamas), (via video-link from the Bahamas), Samantha McMillen (stylist for the Claimant and Ms Heard) (via video-link from Los Angeles), Hilda Vargas (housekeeper for the Claimant) (via video-link from Los Angeles and through a translator), Ben King (a Freelance house manager who worked periodically for the Claimant) (in person), Kevin Murphy (formerly the Claimant’s estate or house manager) (via video-link from Chicago), Kate James (formerly Ms Heard’s assistant) (via video-link from Los Angeles), Sean Bett (one of the Claimant’s security guards) (in person), Starling Jenkins III (one of the Claimant’s security guards) (via video-link from Los Angeles), Isaac Barruch (a longstanding friend of the Claimant) (via video-link from Los Angeles), Alejandro Romero (formerly part of the concierge team at the Eastern Columbia Building) (via video link from Los Angeles), Travis McGivern (one of the Claimant’s security guards) (via video-link from Los Angeles), Laura Divinere (an interior designer and friend of Ms Heard’s) (via video-link from Los Angeles), Katherine Kendall (an actor and activist) (via video link from Los Angeles).

In addition, the Claimant had served hearsay notices so as to rely on the following:

The Claimant had served witness statements from various other people whom he did not call to give evidence. They included his former partner, Vanessa Paradis, and an earlier girlfriend, Winona Ryder. Ms Wass indicated that, had they been called, she would have wished to cross examine them as to their statements, but that was immaterial. Since the Claimant had not called them, he was unable to rely on the evidence they might have given (see CPR r.32.5(1)). The Claimant having chosen not to call these witnesses, it would have been open to the Defendants to put in their witness statements as hearsay evidence (see r.32.5(5)) but that was not something which the Defendants wished to do.

A separate issue arose in consequence of the Claimant’s decision not to call these witnesses. PA Media (formerly the Press Association) applied for copies of the witness statements of Ms Paradis and Ms Ryder. By r.32.13(1),

However, that rule was not engaged. Since the witnesses had not been called, their witness statement did not stand as their evidence in chief. However, Sam Tobin, on behalf of PA Media, submitted that the statements had been referred in open court. On that basis, it was argued, they should be open to inspection. Neither Mr Sherborne nor Ms Wass opposed the application and neither of them asked me to distinguish between

The Defendants called the following witnesses: Amber Heard (in person); Josh Drew (who was the fiancé of Ms Heard’s friend Raquel Pennington, who later married Ms Pennington but who is now divorced from her. In 2016 he and Ms Pennington lived in Penthouse 1 in the Eastern Columbia Building) (via video-link from Los Angeles); Melanie Inglessis (who is a professional makeup artist) via video-link from Los Angeles); Whitney Henriquez (who is the younger sister of Amber Heard) (in person); Kristina Sexton (a friend of Amber Heard) (via video-link from Australia); Raquel Pennington (a friend of Amber Heard) (via video-link from Los Angles); iO Tillett Wright (a friend of Amber Heard) (via video-link from Los Angeles). There were 14 days of evidence and two further days of closing submissions.

I also had some 13 lever arch files of documents. There were many late additions to the bundles which explains why finding the correct document was sometimes challenging. Where it is necessary to give a reference to a document it is as bundle number/tab number/page number. There are multiple copies of some documents. Where this is the case, I give a reference to only one.

I was greatly assisted by, and am very grateful for, the oral and written submissions by counsel for the Claimant (Ms Laws QC, Mr Sherborne and Ms Wilson) and for the Defendants (Ms Wass QC, Mr Wolanski QC and Ms Hamer). The solicitors for the Claimant (Schillings) and for the Defendants (Simons Muirhead and Burton) also did a formidable job, not least of managing the voluminous and regularly increasing number of documents. I am very grateful to them as well.

The Claimant and Ms Heard met in 2009. He was making a film called ‘The Rum Diary’ which was based on a book by Hunter S. Thompson, who was a writer he very much admired. Consequently, the film was a special project for the Claimant. He had casting approval for the film. Ms Heard applied successfully for a part in the film. At the time she was 23. The Claimant at that time was 46.

At that stage, the Claimant was in a relationship with Vanessa Paradis with whom he had two children, Lily-Rose (born on 27^th May 1999) and her younger brother, Jack. Before Ms Paradis and Mr Depp began their relationship, Mr Depp was very friendly with Winona Ryder. When he was with Ms Ryder he had a tattoo on his arm saying ‘Winona forever’. After he and Ms Ryder separated he had changed the tattoo to read ‘Wino forever’.

When Ms Heard met Mr Depp, she was then in a relationship with another woman, called Tasya van Ree, who was an artist.

In their correspondence with each other, Ms Heard would sometimes refer to Mr Depp as ‘Steve’ and he would call her ‘Slim’. That was an allusion to characters in the film ‘To Have and Have Not’ starring Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. The character played by Bogart was about twice the age of the character played by Bacall and that was the reason that these nicknames were chosen.

Mr Depp described a troubled childhood. His home life, he said, was not stable or safe. He had been beaten as a child and for trivial matters. He said that had turned him against violence of any sort, but he was prepared for violence if he thought something was unjust or someone had been physically attacked. He said in his trial witness statement,

His mother had been taking ‘nerve pills’ and on one occasion he had taken one. He found that it calmed his pain. He accepted that he had had a history of using or overusing alcohol and controlled drugs which included cocaine, ecstasy (MDMA), magic mushrooms and cannabis as well as certain prescribed drugs (notably Oxycodone, Roxicodone or Roxies). He much admired some of those who had extolled the virtues of psychedelic drugs of whom Hunter S. Thompson was one. Keith Richards and the musician Marilyn Manson were others with whom he was close friends. Another friend with whom he shared an interest in drugs was Paul Bettany. They dabbled in cocaine, alcohol, Xanax and Adderall together. One of the Claimant’s doctors was Dr Kipper. In an email to the Claimant’s sister, Christi Dembrowski, of 18^th August 2014, Dr Kipper said of the Claimant (file 4/126/F745) he

Ms Heard also gave an account of a troubled home life. She said that both her parents had been alcoholics. She said that her father (David Heard) had been violent to her mother (Paige). Paige died on 1^st April 2020. Amber Heard’s younger sister was Whitney Heard (now Whitney Henriquez).

When the Claimant and Ms Heard were first together, Ms Heard still had a home of her own on Orange Avenue, Los Angeles where she lived with her sister, Whitney. Later when Mr Depp and Ms Heard lived together their home was one of the penthouses (PH3) which Mr Depp owned in a building called ‘Eastern Columbia’ in downtown Los Angeles.

Mr Depp owned five penthouses in the Eastern Columbia Building. He allowed Ms Heard’s sister, Whitney Henriquez, to live for periods in one of the others. Ms Heard’s friend Raquel (‘Rocky’) Pennington came to live in another. She shared that penthouse with her then fiancé, Josh Drew. Ms Pennington and Mr Drew later married but they are now divorced. Isaac Barruch, a long-standing friend of the Claimant’s, lived in another of Mr Depp’s penthouses in the Eastern Columbia Building. None of these were charged rent by Mr Depp for the use of the penthouses.

Mr Depp also owned another property or properties in Los Angeles on Sweetzer Avenue, West Hollywood (‘Sweetzer’).

Mr Depp and Ms Henriquez were on good terms with each other. He sometimes called her ‘sis’ which reflected that he felt she was part of his family.

Mr Depp and Ms Heard were married in February 2015. They separated in May 2016 in circumstances which I shall have to discuss. On 27^th May 2016 Ms Heard obtained a TRO against Mr Depp. Mr Depp was not present or represented at that hearing. It was what in England would be referred to as an order obtained after hearing only from Ms Heard’s lawyer (although on notice to Mr Depp’s lawyer, who filed a response on 26^th May 2016). A hearing date at which Mr Depp would have the opportunity to be heard was originally fixed for 17^th June 2016. On 16^th June 2016 that hearing was adjourned to 15^th August 2016. That hearing never took place because the couple reached agreement on all outstanding matters that day or the following day (16^th August 2016). One of the terms of the settlement was that the Restraining Order proceedings would be ‘dismissed with prejudice’. Ms Heard and Mr Depp are now divorced. Before the marriage they did not have an agreement as to the division of their financial affairs if there was a divorce (a ‘pre-nuptial agreement’), nor did they make one afterwards (a ‘post-nuptial agreement’) although as part of their divorce settlement, as Edward White set out in his second witness statement, Ms Heard received $7 million. She was also relieved of any liability incurred with Mr Depp jointly and a payment of about $500,000 was made for her legal fees.

I have already explained the law as to the burden and standard of proof. I will, of course, apply those to my task. I shall start with some of the general submissions made by Mr Sherborne which transcended the individual incidents and which he submitted should lead me not to believe Ms Heard’s account of domestic violence. I shall consider the alleged past incidents of violence by Mr Depp to people other than Ms Heard (as relied on by Ms Wass) and the alleged past incidents of violence by Ms Heard (as relied upon by Ms Laws and Mr Sherborne other than those parts of the pleaded incidents). I shall then consider individually each of the incidents on which the Defendants rely. I shall then step back and consider whether any different conclusion is required when the evidence is considered in a more global sense.

There is a great deal of detail in this case, but I must not lose sight of the overall purpose of the task which is to decide whether the Defendants have proved the substantial truth of their articles in the meanings which I have found them to bear.

Alleged lie to the Department of Homeland Security regarding the status of Savannah McMillan

On 28^th September 2014 a letter was written to the Department of Homeland Security in these terms,

This letter was said to be a lie because, in truth, Savannah McMillan was working in the United States as Ms Heard’s assistant. Savannah McMillan is not to be confused with Samantha McMillen who was a witness for the Claimant. In this section I shall refer to Savannah without, of course, intending any disrespect to Ms McMillan.

Ms Heard’s response was that Savannah had worked as her assistant during filming in the U.K., although she had then been hired by the production company for the film she had then been making, ‘London Fields’, not by Ms Heard herself. Savannah was similarly hired by other production companies for films that Ms Heard was making outside the USA. Savannah had accompanied Ms Heard to the USA, but she did so as Ms Heard’s friend, not as an employee. Savannah had been detained by US immigration authorities on her arrival in the USA and it was this experience which led to the letter being written to the Department of Homeland Security. Ms Heard said that she had not drafted the letter, but she had signed it because she agreed that its substance was correct. There was no lie.

Kate James had been Ms Heard’s assistant in the USA. Ms James’ witness statement said that the letter from Ms Heard ‘falsely claimed that Savannah was just a friend, and not an employee.’ I am afraid that I did not find Ms James a satisfactory witness. She had been dismissed by Ms Heard in February 2015 and the circumstances of her termination still appeared to be a cause of rancour with Ms James. She did exhibit to her witness statement a cheque for $1625 made out to ‘Savannah McMillian’. In her 5^th witness statement, Ms Heard said,

I accept Ms Heard’s evidence in this regard. I do not consider that the letter to Homeland Security was a lie. Erin Boerum acted as Ms Heard’s nurse on occasions. On 21^st April 2016 Ms Heard had a dinner to celebrate her 30^th birthday (the following day). Ms. Boerum was one of the guests. In a note which she wrote of the occasion, Ms Boerum referred to arriving with ‘client’s UK assistant, Savannah’. However, Ms Boerum did not give evidence before me and there is nothing in the documentation to explain the source of her information that Savannah was then acting as Ms Heard’s assistant (if indeed Ms Boerum intended to convey that by her note). In crossexamination, Ms Heard said that Savannah was ‘on and off her assistant’, but not in the USA. Ms Boerum’s note does not alter my conclusion that Ms Heard did not lie to the Department of Homeland Security. Nor do the emails which Kevin Murphy exhibits to his second witness statement, none of which demonstrate that Savannah was employed by, or for the benefit of, Ms Heard while Savannah was in the USA. The allegation that she did, therefore, has no bearing on whether Ms Heard is to be believed in relation to her allegations that she was assaulted by Mr Depp.

A subsidiary issue in this regard ventilated at trial was whether Savannah had drafted the letter (as Ms Heard said in her evidence). Mr Sherborne in his closing speech observed that the letter contained two different spellings of her surname: Mcmillen in the second paragraph; and McMillen in the fourth paragraph. Mr Sherborne submitted that Savannah was unlikely to have made these errors, both of which were inconsistent with the spelling of her surname in the email address which she appeared to use. Mr Sherborne further observed that Ms Heard had spelt Savannah’s surname as ‘McMillen’ in her affidavit of 17^th April 2016 in relation to her prosecution in Australia in relation to bringing the dogs into that country (see further below).

While there may be some force in Mr Sherborne’s observations, in my view it takes the matter no further. Whoever had drafted the letter, it had been signed by Ms Heard who thereby accepted responsibility for its contents as she accepted in her evidence. When Ms Heard was cross-examined the discrepancy in the spelling of Savannah’s surname was not put to her (in cross-examination Ms Heard agreed that the language of the letter was overblown. She said that ‘The language was Savannah’s’. She said, ‘I signed it because it represented the truth.’). In any case, the identity of the drafter of the letter does not assist in resolving whether the Department of Homeland Security was lied to by Ms Heard. Besides, the drafter of the letter was not the only person to be challenged by the spelling of Savannah’s surname. Whoever wrote the name of the payee on the cheque which Ms James exhibits has given her surname as ‘McMillian’, another error.

Conviction in Australia for knowingly making a false declaration regarding the importation of dogs to Australia

In March 2015 Mr Depp had been filming one of the ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ films in Australia. Ms Heard had joined him. This was the occasion of incident 8 in the RAD. It was also the occasion when Mr Depp’s finger was injured. As a result of the injury to Mr Depp, the filming was disrupted. It was due to start again in April 2015.

At that stage, Ms Heard was making a film in the UK and then had to attend a promotional event for another film in New York. She flew from New York to Los Angeles where she met the Claimant. The two of them then flew by a private charter plane to Brisbane, Australia on 21^st April 2015. They were accompanied by two dogs: Pistol and Boo. Pistol belonged to Ms Heard; Boo had originally belonged to Mr Depp’s mother but was by then owned by him.

The plane was met at Brisbane Airport by quarantine and customs officers. Ms Heard completed an incoming passenger card which included the question, ‘Are you bringing into Australia animals, parts of animals etc?’. Ms Heard answered this question ‘no’. That answer was false, since Ms Heard was accompanied by Pistol and Boo. She knew that it was false since she knew that she was accompanied by the dogs.

In May 2015 there was media coverage of the presence of the dogs in Australia. On 13^th May 2015 the dogs were ordered into quarantine and an order was made that they be re-exported within 72 hours. On 15^th May 2015 the dogs were taken out of Australia.

On or about 8^th July 2015 Ms Heard was charged with three offences. I do not have the details of two of them, but the third offence was under s.137.2(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code 1995 because she had produced a document, namely an Incoming Passenger Card, to Cara Burgess, an Australian Customs and Border Protection Officer, knowing that the said document was false.

On 13^th October 2015 Ms Heard provided an unsworn statement to the prosecution regarding her actions and state of mind. On 3^rd November 2015 there was an indication that she would plead guilty to the charge of knowingly making a false statement, on the basis that the other two charges were discontinued. That was acceptable to the prosecution and the court therefore treated the guilty plea as timely.

On 17^th April 2016 Ms Heard swore an affidavit which, inter alia, set out her belief that the necessary documentation for the dogs’ entry into Australia had been provided separately and, accordingly, it was not necessary for her to declare their presence at the customs entry.

Ms Heard was dealt with for this offence by B. Callaghan, sitting at Southport Magistrates’ Court on 18^th April 2016. A report in The Guardian for 18^th April 2016 said that the Magistrate was Bernadette Callaghan.

In the course of her sentencing remarks, Ms Callaghan said this,

Ms Callaghan dealt with the offence by finding that it was sufficient to require Ms Heard to enter into a recognisance supported by a security of $1000 to be of good behaviour for one month.

The offence to which Ms Heard pleaded guilty involved knowingly making a false statement. As Ms Callaghan said, that was not a trivial offence, but its nature is so far removed from the evidence which Ms Heard gave in this trial that its relevance for her credibility is marginal at most.

Allegation that Ms Heard sought to procure false evidence by Kevin Murphy and Kate James for the purpose the criminal proceedings in Australia

Of potentially greater significance is the suggestion advanced by the Claimant that Ms Heard was willing to solicit Kate James to give untruthful evidence, and put pressure on Kevin Murphy to give untruthful evidence in her support. I will take these separately.

I take first the allegation regarding Kate James. Mr Sherborne relies on a series of emails between (a) Ms Heard (b) Karl Austen, Ms Heard’s entertainment lawyer, and (c) Marty Singer, one of Mr Depp’s American lawyers.

On 9^th October 2015 Ms Heard wrote to Karl Martin and Marty Singer in the course of which she said,

On the same day Mr Singer wrote,

On 11^th October 2015, Ms Heard wrote to Mr Murphy. She forwarded the email chain above (It may be that Ms Heard also forwarded the emails from Marty Singer – below, as well) and said,

On the same day, Mr Singer wrote an email to Ms Heard which included the following,

Ms Heard responded the same day saying,

I had no evidence that Ms James was ever, in the event, actually asked to sign a statement of any kind and, in any event, no evidence that she was asked to sign an untruthful statement. Mr Murphy said in his re-examination that he had refused to ask Ms James to make a statement. In any event, as Ms Wass submitted, the suggestion that Ms James might be asked to make a statement that was not truthful came from Marty Singer.

As I have said, Marty Singer was one of Mr Depp’s American lawyers. Mr Sherborne submitted that, for this purpose, he was representing Ms Heard. It was, after all, Ms Heard who was prosecuted in Australia, not Mr Depp. Ms Heard’s account was that she was willing to accept responsibility for the offence because a conviction of Mr Depp might prejudice his future ability to gain a visa for Australia. While it was not open to either of them to decide unilaterally who was to be prosecuted, it meant that Mr Depp had a very real interest in the prosecution and there was also a very good reason why Marty Singer should continue to be involved as Mr Depp’s lawyer.

I accept Ms Heard’s evidence in this regard. It is also supported by the video which Mr Depp and Ms Heard jointly made in which they apologised and underlined the importance of observing Australian restrictions on the importation of animals. As I have shown, Ms Callaghan was influenced by this video to sentence Ms Heard in the way that she did.

A further piece of evidence in this regard is a deposition which was given by Mr Depp on 12^th December 2018 in the course of litigation in Los Angeles in a case which he and others brought against Bloom Hergott and others. Mr Depp said (see File 3/72(a)/ F6.7),

A yet further indication that Mr Depp felt personally involved, although it was not him who was being prosecuted, is a text which he sent to Ms Heard on 20^th April 2016 (two days after Ms Callaghan’s decision), in which he said (see file 6 /119/F697.145),

I turn to Mr Murphy. He did sign a statement for the Australian proceedings, on 13^th October 2015. In the course of this he said,

In his second witness statement for the present proceedings, dated 23^rd June 2020, Mr Murphy says that his declaration contained statements ‘that were not entirely true’. He says that it was untrue that Ms James had responsibility for the paperwork and had not completed it and that this was the reason why Ms Heard travelled with the dogs to Australia without the necessary paperwork. Mr Murphy added,

Mr Murphy says that Ms Heard was aware of the difficulties regarding the dogs’ paperwork. He exhibits a series of emails between him and Ms Heard from 28^th March 2015 – 1^st April 2015. On 31^st March 2015 Mr Murphy emailed Ms Heard to ask whether he should discontinue the travel paper process. He had said earlier that the dogs would not be allowed ‘to fly commercial in the passenger compartment to Australia’ and he had asked whether Ms Heard would be content for them to fly as cargo. Ms Heard had said she was not willing to let them fly cargo to Australia. The last email in the chain was from Ms Heard who wrote on 1^st April 2015,

Mr Murphy said that he made his untrue statement for the Australian proceedings because of pressure that Ms Heard put him under. He said that when he expressed discomfort at making a false statement Ms Heard had said to him,

Mr Murphy says that he was relieved when the Australian proceedings were ‘settled’ without him having to go to Australia to give false evidence in accordance with his witness statement. He says that he nonetheless felt uncomfortable about the statement which he had made. After Ms Heard filed for a divorce from Mr Depp, Mr Murphy instructed a Los Angeles law firm Huang Ybarra Singer and May to seek advice on retracting his declaration in the Australian proceedings. Mr Murphy says further,

Mr Murphy exhibits a letter from the Los Angeles law firm confirming that they had represented him in 2016 in connection with

In her 5^th witness statement made on 26^th June 2020, Ms Heard says:

In her evidence Ms Heard was asked whether she agreed that she had been told that she could not take the dogs into Australia. She said that she had been told many things and it had been confusing. Her experience had been that if Mr Depp wanted something it could happen. She had been filming in London. She then went briefly to New York. She had only been in Los Angeles for a few hours before joining Mr Depp, members of his staff and the two dogs on the chartered plane to Australia. She said, ‘Before I left for Australia, I thought it had all been taken care of.’ She was travelling to Australia to be with Mr Depp while he continued with his film. Mr Depp was the boss. It was his plane, his staff and his crew. There was no attempt to conceal the dogs. She had not sought to get Mr Murphy to make an untrue statement. Mr Murphy did have primary responsibility for seeing to the necessary travel arrangements, although Kate James was also involved until she was dismissed in February 2015. Ms Heard said she had pled guilty to the one remaining charge.

I do not accept that Ms Heard sought to pressurise Mr Murphy into making a false statement for the Australian proceedings.

Accordingly, I do not consider that the allegations regarding either Ms James or Mr Murphy impinge on the credibility of Ms Heard.

Allegation that Ms Heard tried to ‘grease’ a vet to procure necessary travel documentation for the dogs

Ms Kate James exhibits to her witness statement an email which she received from Ms Heard dated 21^st September 2013 which said,

This did concern the dogs, although it was a separate occasion than the entry into Australia in April 2015.

In her 5^th witness statement, Ms Heard says of this,

Ms Heard maintained that account in her cross-examination.

In my view, this was a tangential issue. Whether or not the suggestion of ‘greasing’ a vet originated with Mr Depp, I take Ms Heard’s denial that it originated with her as final. This does not, therefore, impinge on her credibility.

The growth in number and seriousness of the allegations of domestic violence by Ms Heard

The Claimant observes that the incidents of alleged violence by Mr Depp have grown in number and seriousness. In support of her application for a temporary restraining order, Ms Heard relied on only incidents 12, 13 and 14. The number had grown by the time Ms Heard was deposed in the divorce proceedings, and had increased again in Ms Heard’s 1^st witness statement for the present proceedings.

I do not consider that this argument undermines Ms Heard’s credibility. Paragraph 4 of the declaration in support of her application for a temporary restraining order said,

The three incidents to which the Claimant’s submission refers appear under the heading ‘Recent events supporting the basis of the instant DVRO request’.

Paragraph 21 said,

Further, in her evidence, Ms Heard said that she had been told by her Californian divorce lawyer that three incidents were sufficient. While it is the case that Ms Heard did not waive her privilege and I had no evidence from the lawyer to this effect, it is consistent with the other parts of the declaration which I have already quoted. I also note that the letter which Ms Spector (Ms Heard’s attorney) wrote to Mr Depp’s lawyers said (after referring to Incident 14),

Overall, I conclude that this is not a reason to doubt Ms Heard’s allegations that she was assaulted by Mr Depp as she has alleged.

Ms Heard’s enthusiasm to meet with Mr Depp in July 2016 despite the restraining order

Incident 14 occurred on 21^st May 2016. On numerous occasions on 24^th May 2016 Ms Heard texted Mr Depp urging him to get in touch with her. She also texted Jerry Judge, Mr Depp’s head of security, to ask him to persuade Mr Depp to call her.

In her deposition in the divorce proceedings on 13^th August 2016, Ms Heard said that she wanted to speak to Mr Depp to alert him in advance to her intention to file for a divorce.

As I have said, the Restraining Order which Ms Heard obtained on 27^th May 2016 was temporary. Originally it was due to continue until 17^th June 2016, but it was extended by agreement until 16^th August 2016. It therefore remained in force in July 2016.

Ms Heard nonetheless contacted Mr Depp and proposed that they meet in San Francisco. Mr Depp agreed to the meeting which he said took place in a hotel in that city with just the two of them. Ms Heard recorded the conversation which they then had. Mr Depp said he was unaware of the recording.

Mr Depp said that during the meeting, Ms Heard at one stage asked him to embrace her. He refused. He said that she had accused him of assaulting her and of being a horrible monster. He could not understand why she would then want him to hug her. The discussion continued for some time. Mr Depp said that Ms Heard complained of feeling unwell. Mr Depp suggested that she take a nap in the bedroom. She got into bed and asked if he was going to join her. Mr Depp declined. He said that at no time during this meeting did Ms Heard seem scared.

When Ms Heard was cross-examined on this topic, she said that her feelings towards Mr Depp were confused. She loved the side of him that was charming. She was terrified of the other side of him; what she called ‘the Monster’. It was put to her that, if there was even one aspect of the Claimant which terrified her, she would not have met him. Ms Heard denied that was so.

In re-examination she said that she had arranged for a mutual friend called Christian Carino to be present at the meeting and for him to remain in shouting distance so that it was not just Mr Depp’s security who were within reach.

Mr Depp was asked about Christian Carino. He agreed that Mr Carino was keen to be his agent and Mr Carino did succeed in that regard. Mr Depp said that Mr Carino was attempting to be a mediator between himself and Ms Heard. Mr Depp also agreed that Mr Carino had been present at the first meeting in July 2016.

I do not find that any of this assists me in determining whether Ms Heard is to be believed in her allegations of violence by Mr Depp. She certainly would not be the first woman to have equivocal attitudes towards her partner, even if he had been abusing her. In my view, Ms Heard could still have wished to meet with Mr Depp because of her past or present affection for him (or one side of his character) even if on other occasions he (or a different side of his character) had terrified her. Mr Depp’s answer that Mr Carino had been present for the ‘first’ of the July meetings left an ambiguity as to which meeting or meetings in July Mr Carino had not been present. That might have usefully been explored, though, by that stage in her cross-examination Ms Wass was under considerable time pressure. In any event, even if a third party was not present for every meeting between Mr Depp and Ms Heard in July 2016, my view remains the same: it does not assist me in deciding whether Ms Heard is to be believed as to her allegations that Mr Depp assaulted her.

Ms Heard’s admission to violence in recorded conversations contrasted with her evidence in which she denied being the violent party

In her witness statements and in her evidence, Ms Heard maintained that it had always been Mr Depp who had been the aggressor. She said that the only occasion when she

The Claimant argued that this was inconsistent with admissions which Ms Heard had made in various of her conversations with Mr Depp in which she admitted being the, or a, violent party.

Thus, in one recording, referred to as ‘Argument 2’, Mr Depp and Ms Heard had the following exchange (file 4/154/F922):

On another occasion (file 5/161n/F1009.23) there was this exchange:

A ‘hay-maker’ is a particularly violent punch. Mr Sherborne submitted that there was no hint of denial in Ms Heard’s response.

In her evidence, Ms Heard said that she did sometimes throw pots and pans at Mr Depp but only to try and escape him and as a means of self-defence. She also said at times in Argument 2 she was being sarcastic.

In my view no great weight is to be put on these alleged admissions by Ms Heard to aggressive violent behaviour. It is trite to say, but nonetheless true, that these conversations are quite different to evidence in court. A witness giving evidence in court does so under an oath or affirmation to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Questioning can be controlled by the judge. Questions which are unclear can be re-phrased. If a question is not answered, it can be pressed (subject to the court’s control) and if still unanswered may be the proper object of comment. None of those features applied to these conversations which, in any event, according to Ms Heard had a purpose or purposes different from simply conveying truthful information.

I take the same view of the recording whose transcript is at file 7/ 155/F969 & F972 which, from its context, appears to be a recording made in late May 2016.

Ms Heard’s invention of ‘the monster’ in an attempt to portray the Claimant as a ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ character

Mr Sherborne submitted that ‘the Monster’ was a fiction created by Ms Heard. He was no ‘Jekyll and Hyde character’.

In his evidence, Mr Depp said that ‘the Monster’ was a term invented by Ms Heard.

Ms Wass referred me to Mr Depp’s own references to ‘the Monster’ in his communications with people other than Ms Heard. I agree with Mr Sherborne that some of these are jokey allusions to a monster which were not meant to be taken seriously.

However, that is not a sufficient explanation of Mr Depp’s use of the term ‘the monster’ on other occasions. Thus, for instance, on 26^th April 2015, Mr Depp’s then head of security, Jerry Judge, had sent him a text message commenting on how pleased Mr Judge had been to see Mr Depp and Ms Heard getting on so well. The same day, Mr Depp replied (file 6/119/F697.70),

Similarly, on 28^th June 2015 Mr Depp sent a text to his doctor, Dr Kipper which said (file 10/147(a)/O149),

On 14^th May 2015 Mr Depp texted Stephen Deuters and said,

On 4^th October 2014 Mr Depp sent a text to an unidentified number in which he said (see file 6/119/F697.43),

On 22^nd March 2012 Mr Depp wrote an email to Elton John, referring to the fact that he had then been sober for 100 days. His email said (file 8/62(d)/I0.7),

In his evidence Mr Depp said that by ‘the monster’ in his email to Elton John he was referring to ‘death’. While that is a possible meaning of that email in isolation, read in the context of the other evidence, it seems to me more likely to be a reference to ‘the monster’ term which Ms Heard said Mr Depp himself used to describe his alter ego.

In any event, I do not accept that Ms Heard invented the expression, still less that her use of it is a reason to disbelieve her evidence about her allegations of violence by Mr Depp. I find that Ms Heard’s use of the expression was not, as Mr Sherborne submitted, an example of ‘retro-engineering’.

There is no evidence that Mr Depp has any convictions for violence in the UK, in the USA or in any other jurisdiction.

In the course of his evidence he was questioned about a number of episodes when he was said to have been violent, either to property or to people. I shall refer to these briefly, but I can say that I did not find any of them to be of any great assistance in my task.

In my view all of these incidents are of very limited value. None led to a conviction. Many were of considerable vintage. The incident involving the paparazzi photographers did involve some violence, on Mr Depp’s admission, but its nature was far removed from the allegations made by Ms Heard. Mr Brooks’ claim is outstanding.

That said, I was shown an exchange of texts between Mr Depp, Ms Paradis (who, Mr Depp said, was referred to in his records as ‘marino’) and possibly others which said

It may be asked why Ms Heard’s record or non-record for violence is of any relevance at all. It may be said that the libel which the Defendants are alleging is true is that Mr Depp was violent towards Ms Heard. Why then is it of any relevance to investigate whether Ms Heard was violent towards Mr Depp? Mr Sherborne offered two answers to this. First, it was integral to the defence of truth that the violence used by Mr Depp had been unlawful or unjustified. If, for instance, the only violence which Mr Depp had used had been in defence of himself it would hardly assist the Defendants in establishing the substantial truth of their allegation that he was a ‘wife-beater’.

Second, it was Mr Depp’s case that it was not he, but Ms Heard who had been the violent party. She denied this was so, but, if his account was correct, that would reflect adversely on her credibility.

Like Mr Depp, there was no evidence that Ms Heard had convictions for violence against people or property in the UK, the USA or anywhere else in the world.

There was it seems an occasion in 2009 when Ms Heard was arrested on suspicion that she had assaulted her then partner Tasya van Ree. No charge followed the arrest.

I had some further information about the circumstances that led to that course. On 26^th

A further letter of 3^rd January 2012 (file 5.1/199/F1213) gave another reason for not prosecuting Ms Heard which was that there had been a delay in reviewing the file and the 2-year period of limitation had in the meantime expired.

In November 2011, an attorney on behalf of Ms Heard wrote to the Seattle Police Department asking that the record of her arrest should be deleted. 7 days later the police agreed to this course (file 5.1/199/F1216).

Nonetheless, this arrest of Ms Heard was referred to in the press shortly after she filed for divorce from Mr Depp and she was granted the temporary restraining order. That publicity, in turn, led Tasya van Ree to write to Jodi Gottlieb, Ms Heard’s publicist, in terms supportive of Ms Heard. Ms van Ree also alleged that the arresting officers had been homophobic. In my view all that can be said of this incident is:

It was also put to Ms Heard that, while she had been living with Ms van Ree in Puerto Rico, neighbours had complained of loud screaming arguments. Ms Heard denied this was the case or that she had had a volatile relationship with Ms van Ree. This allegation is of no significance at all.

In her cross-examination Whitney Henriquez denied that her sister had ever been violent to her. I gave permission for the cross examination to be continued so that a piece of film out-take could be put to Ms Henriquez. She said that the film did not change her evidence. She said that the filmmakers had been trying to manufacture a story out of nothing. It was not the case that she had had a physical fight with Ms Heard who had got the better of her or caused her any injury. Ms Henriquez had simply wanted to shut down that topic of conversation. In my view, the film added nothing of value to the issue of whether Ms Heard had a violent record.

In his closing submissions, Mr Sherborne referred to a text from Mr Depp to Malcolm Connolly on 5^th April 2016 which said (file 10/147(a)/O17),

However, 5^th April 2016 was not the date of any of the incidents. Ms Heard was not asked about these texts in her evidence. While I have recognised that the parties were under time pressure which could excuse some failures to put points to opposing witnesses, I regard this as in a different category. Without Ms Heard having had the opportunity to comment on these texts I consider that it would be unfair to her and the Defendants to hold them against them.

There was evidence that Ms Heard could have a quick temper. Thus, for instance, Dr Connell Cowan, her psychotherapist noted on 27^th August 2014 (file 9/101A/K4),

The bottom line therefore is that neither Mr Depp, nor Ms Heard has any previous convictions for violence. I bear that in mind when considering the allegations that Mr Depp was violent to Ms Heard (or, indeed, that she was violent to him).

In a criminal trial where a defendant has no relevant convictions or cautions and does not admit any criminal conduct, a jury should be directed (as the ‘Crown Court Compendium’ updated version July 2020 advises) as follows:

I have quoted the respective parties’ pleadings about this incident in the RAD and RAR above (see paragraphs 47 and 48 above). It will be recalled that Mr Depp used to be in

Mr Depp had realised that he had a problem with alcohol. He had tried to stay sober with the encouragement of friends such as Elton John. However, by March 2013 he accepted that he had broken his sobriety or, as he put it, he had ‘fallen off the wagon’. He was drinking whiskey and wine. He agreed that he was disappointed with himself and that it was not kind of Ms Heard to laugh at his failure.

On this occasion an argument ensued which, Ms Heard says, for the first time led to Mr Depp assaulting her. According to Ms Heard, he later blamed his behaviour on ‘the monster’ i.e. his alter ego.

While Ms Heard had probably seen the tattoo many times before this incident in early 2013, that does not eliminate the possibility that a combination of factors (particularly Mr Depp’s consumption of alcohol and drugs) led him to react violently to a perceived slight by Ms Heard. I have already said that I accept that Mr Depp did refer to ‘the monster’. That expression was not a figment of Ms Heard’s imagination. I accept her evidence that Mr Depp used the term to refer to that part of his personality when, affected by drink and/or drugs he would do things which he would not otherwise do and of which he might have no recollection afterwards.

Seen in isolation, the evidence that Mr Depp assaulted Ms Heard on this occasion might not be sufficient. However, taken with the evidence as a whole, I find that it did occur. Incident 2: the painting incident

I have quoted what is said in the RAD and the RAR about this incident above (see paragraphs 49 and 50 above). It will be seen that (a) the incident regarding Mr Depp’s attempt to set fire to the painting was alleged to have been on the same occasion that he allegedly assaulted Ms Heard for the second time (b) that both incidents were alleged to have taken place on 8^th March 2013 and (c) it is only a single painting of Tasya van Ree which the Claimant was said to have defaced.

Ms Heard exhibited to her 1^st witness statement (dated 15^th December 2019) an exchange of messages which she had had with Mr Depp all of which were on 12^th March 2013 and which said (file 2/60/E44),

Ms Heard said that she had originally assigned 8^th March 2013 to incident 2 on the basis of this exchange and counting back 4 days from 12^th March.

In her 5^th witness statement (dated 26^th June 2020) Ms Heard said at paragraph 41,

In her 6^th witness statement (dated 4^th July 2020) Ms Heard said,

In her 7^th witness statement made on 6^th July 2020 (the day before the trial started), Ms Heard said this,

In relation to this incident, the Defendants also relied on the evidence of Whitney Henriquez, Ms Heard’s sister. Although she did not claim to have seen the assault on her sister, she, too, said in her statement that there had been an incident where Mr Depp had been drinking heavily and snorting cocaine. There had then been difficulty in persuading Mr Depp to attend the filming with Keith Richards. Ms Henriquez, like her sister, had dated all of this as occurring on or about 8^th March 2013. She saw her sister had a split lip. She also spoke of Mr Depp scratching out Ms van Ree’s signature on the painting and replacing it with ‘Tasya van Pee’. In her witness statement, she, too, dated the defacement of the painting, the difficulty of getting Mr Depp to the Keith Richards filming and seeing her sister’s split lip as 8^th March 2013.

In evidence in chief, Ms Henriquez said (a) the incident when she saw her sister’s split lip was later in March 2013 than 8^th (b) the painting on which Mr Depp had altered the signature was a different painting to the one he had tried to burn (though both had been by Ms van Ree). Ms Henriquez said in her evidence that her memory had merged into one the two separate incidents regarding Ms van Ree’s paintings.

In cross-examination Ms Henriquez was asked about an exchange of messages with Mr Depp on 11^th February 2014. Ms Henriquez had sent Mr Depp a photo of the painting with the altered signature. On 24^th February 2014 she said (file 7/2(b)(ii)/H23.4D),

As I have said, Ms Henriquez moved into the Eastern Columbia Building in 2014. She moved out in 2015, but she came back from time to time from January 2016. Ms Henriquez denied that she would never have done that if there had been any truth in her allegation that Mr Depp had injured her sister (at least) in 2013 and again (in Incident 9 - the staircase incident) in March 2015.

It was put to Ms Henriquez and Ms Heard that they had altered the day of the alleged assault in Incident 2 because a photo had been taken of Ms Heard, Keith Richards and others on 21^st March 2013 and it could be seen that she had no injury to her face. They both denied that was the reason for the new dating of the assault.

Mr Depp agreed that there were two paintings by Ms van Ree in the documents before me: the one with the altered signature (file 7/2(b)(i)/H23.4A) and the one referred to in the course of the trial as ‘flamingos’ (file 7/2(b)(ii)/H23.4B) . He agreed that a painting by Ms van Ree had hung in Ms Heard’s bedroom in Orange Avenue and it had been there since the beginning of their relationship.

Initially in his cross examination, Mr Depp denied that he had been addicted to cocaine at this time or that he had a small 2-inch square box which was his special box for his cocaine. However, when shown the photograph at file 6/148f/F894.263 showing a box about 2 inches square with a skull and crossbones and, in raised letters, ‘property of JD’, he accepted that was his and that it probably contained cocaine on this occasion. The metadata for the photograph showed that it was taken on 22^nd March 2013 at 1.37pm.

Mr Depp was shown a photograph which Ms Heard had taken of herself in a mirror (6/148/F894.001) and which appears to show a bruise on her arm. In her 6^th witness statement Ms Heard said of this photograph, ‘I took this photo of my injuries after a spate of attacks by Johnny in March 2013.’ Mr Depp denied that he had caused the bruise. The metadata shows the picture to have been taken on 23^rd March 2013. On that day Ms Heard sent a copy of this photograph by text to her mother under the heading ‘From 2 weeks ago today.’ If that is correct, it could not have been a bruise caused by Mr Depp on 22^nd March 2013.

My findings in relation to incident 2 are as follows:

I have set out the allegations of the Defendants in relation to this incident and the Claimant’s reply at paragraphs 51 and 52 above.

The Hicksville incident took place in late May or early June 2013. On 11^th June 2013 Ms Heard wrote an email to herself (rather in the nature of a diary entry). Although in parts it was addressed to Mr Depp, it was never sent to him. Part of this email said (see file 8/64/I2),

When Mr Depp was asked about this email, he said that this was a hoax. He said that Ms Heard was building up a dossier, as an insurance policy for later.

I do not accept Mr Depp’s characterisation of this and the other documentary evidence on which the Defendants relied.

Both Mr Depp and Ms Heard agreed that there had been an argument at Hicksville between the two of them over the behaviour of a woman called Kelly-Sue. Mr Depp said that he believed she had taken MDMA and had begun to behave in a sexualised way towards Ms Heard. When asked in cross-examination whether Ms Heard could not object for herself if she thought Kelly-Sue’s behaviour was inappropriate, Mr Depp said, ‘I was being a gentleman.’ He said that he rebuked Kelly-Sue by saying to her, ‘That’s [i.e. Ms Heard] my girl’ and he told Kelly-Sue that she was being ‘rude and invasive’.

When they got back to the trailer where he and Ms Heard were staying, he agreed that the argument over Kelly-Sue’s behaviour continued. He commented, ‘I was very upset at yet again being treated as, pardon the expression, the turd in the punchbowl. That was not something I deserved for doing what I thought right and correct.’

Mr Depp agreed that in his anger he had punched an art deco fixture, a bathroom sconce. He denied that the trailer was badly damaged or that there was mess everywhere. The following morning, he had gone to the manager of the trailer park and apologised for damaging the light fixture.

He denied that he had hit Ms Heard in the course of the argument in the trailer.

One of the other people present in Hicksville was Kristina Sexton. She had known Ms Heard since 2009 and, since 2010, had been Ms Heard’s acting coach. She continued in that capacity until 2016. Ms Sexton said that she had heard screaming and shouting the night the group stayed in Hicksville. She recognised Mr Depp’s voice. The following morning, she went to the trailer being used by Ms Heard and Mr Depp. She said that the trailer was pretty messed up and the damage was more than just a broken wall light. There was broken glass strewn everywhere. There was also torn fabric, which looked like window coverings, strewn around. Ms Sexton said that everything was in disarray.

Another of the people present at Hicksville was Raquel (‘Rocky’) Pennington who was another friend of Ms Heard. She said that Kelly-Sue had been her friend. When KellySue hugged Ms Heard, Mr Depp had said words to the effect of ‘get off my woman’ which is close to the remark which Mr Depp admitted he had made in his evidence.

Ms Pennington says that Ms Heard reported to her the following morning that Mr Depp had been in a rage and had trashed their trailer.

Malcolm Connolly, one of Mr Depp’s security team, was the only member of the team at Hicksville. Mr Connolly said that Mr Depp dealt with the owner of the trailer on his own. Although Mr Connolly was present at Hicksville, the evidence which he could give regarding this incident was of limited value: his witness statement made no mention of it. He did not go inside the trailer after the damage had been done.

My findings in relation to Incident 3 are as follows:

The RAD sets out the Defendants’ case (see paragraph 53) relating to this incident and the RAR sets out the Claimant’s reply (see paragraph 54).

Ms Heard gave her account of this incident in her first witness statement paragraphs 65-83. She was not cross-examined about this incident.

In about May 2014 the Claimant was making a film in Boston. Ms Heard was making a film called ‘The Adderall Diaries’ in New York. One of the other actors in her film was James Franco. Mr Franco was considerably younger than Mr Depp. Mr Depp said that he could not understand why Ms Heard had agreed to appear in another film with Mr Franco since, when they had been together in a previous film, she had accused Mr Franco of making sexual advances to her. He said that she described said Mr Franco’s behaviour as ‘creepy’ and ‘rapey’. Ms Heard had also expressed the wish to move away from parts which objectified her. Mr Depp thought this was inconsistent with her accepting a part in another film with James Franco. He agreed that Ms Heard might be concerned that he would become jealous of Mr Franco. There is some other evidence that Ms Heard was apprehensive about this. On 10^th May 2014 Ms Heard sent an email to her assistant Kate James, asking her to ensure that the Claimant did not see the ‘oneliner’ of her schedule. She was concerned that, if he did, he would see the romantic nature of the scenes she was playing with Mr Franco and the Claimant’s jealousy would be further inflamed.

The Claimant chartered a private plane to fly him and Ms Heard to Los Angeles. The flight was on 24^th May 2014.

Two days before the plane journey, on 22^nd May 2014, Mr Depp had his first consultation with Dr Kipper. As Dr Kipper recorded in his notes (file 4/123/F736),

The Claimant did not recall whether he was under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs during the plane journey. However, in a text sent on 30^th May 2014 to his friend, Paul Bettany, and which he agreed was about this flight, he said (file 6/119/F697.34),

The Claimant agreed that the reference to ‘powders’ in this text referred to cocaine. He agreed that he had been incorrect earlier in his evidence when he said he had not taken cocaine at the time of this flight. He said,

He thought the reference to ‘pills’ in his text to Mr Bettany was to Roxies to which he was then addicted. Having been reminded of the text, he accepted that he had consumed alcohol and cocaine both before and on the flight. He denied that he could not remember the flight at all, but, he said, parts of the flight were blacked out, as he had also said to Mr Bettany, and he probably would not have said that had it been untrue. Mr Deuters, who was also on the plane, said of the Claimant that ‘his memory was not solid all the way through’.

Mr Deuters supported the account in the RAR that the Claimant had not during the flight assaulted Ms Heard. He said that the Claimant had never kicked her. The configuration of the seats and tables in the plane would not have allowed him to do so. The Claimant may have playfully moved to tap Ms Heard on her bottom with his shoe, but he was not sure that this connected. He said that the Claimant had been quiet and focussed on his sketching. Eventually the Claimant had gone to the bathroom.

Mr Deuters sent Ms Heard a series of texts beginning at 21.13 on 24^th May 2014 which he accepted must have been after Ms Heard had disembarked from the plane. These said (see file 6/119/F697.28),

Mr Deuters explained that the Claimant had fallen asleep in the bathroom. He was potentially hungover, or it might have been indigestion because of the opiates the Claimant was taking.

Then a little later he sent a further series of texts,

The following morning (so 25^th May 2014) Mr Depp sent a text to Ms Heard which said (file 6/119/F697.29),

Mr Depp was asked why he had apologised if he had not behaved badly. He said that he apologised because Ms Heard was unresponsive to him. She would not let go of her beliefs and so he used words which she would find pleasing. He said he spoke of being in a place of shame and regret to take the poison out of her quill and because, in the course of a verbal argument, he might have said ugly words. The illness to which he had referred was to his excessive drinking.

He agreed that he and Ms Heard had screamed at each other. Ms Wass played a tape which she submitted had been made on the plane and on which a male could be heard moaning or making animal noises. The Claimant said he was not sure that it was his voice or that the recording had been made on that plane journey. The Defendants applied in the course of the trial for permission to adduce expert evidence on this topic. The application related to other items as well. I shall return to consider that application in the context of Incident 14. It is sufficient to say at this point that I refused the application.

The Claimant said that he had instructed Mr Deuters to try to placate Ms Heard which, Mr Deuters said, explained the series of texts he sent to Ms Heard starting at 15.45 on 25^th May 2014. These said (see file 6/119/F697.29 The time was 13.19 according to the copy at 7/1/H13)),

Then a little later at 17.25 (or 10.25),

At 20.47 (or 13.47) Ms Heard texted Mr Deuters,

A few seconds later Mr Deuters responded,

Again, Mr Deuters said that he was saying to Ms Heard what he thought she wanted to hear. He had done what the Claimant instructed him to do: try to placate Ms Heard.

On 27^th May 2014 Ms Heard sent a text to Mr Depp in which she declared her love for him. She added, however (see file 6/119/F697.33),

In his trial witness statement, Mr Depp exhibited a text which he sent to his sister, Christi, on 27^th May 2014 (so three days after the flight). Mr Depp wrote (see file 2/38/D66),

Mr Deuters had been in touch with Christi (see his text of 25^th May 2014 at 16.06 or

In his trial witness statement Mr Depp also says,

Mr Deuters denied that Mr Depp had shouted obscenities at Ms Heard or had assaulted her. At most Mr Depp had playfully tapped her back or bottom.

On 8^th June 2014 Mr Depp sent a text to a woman called Patti Smith or Lee which included the following (file 6/119/F697.34),

My conclusions regarding Incident 4 are as follows:

In August 2014 Mr Depp visited the island he owned in the Bahamas in order to try and rid himself of his addiction to Roxies. Ms Heard went with him. So, too, did a Registered Nurse, Debbie Lloyd, though Ms Lloyd stayed on a separate part of the island with the rest of the staff. There came a point where Dr Kipper flew out to the Bahamas to assist Nurse Lloyd in helping Mr Depp cope with the withdrawal symptoms. The Defendants allege that Ms Heard was physically assaulted by Mr Depp while they were in the Bahamas (see paragraph 55 above where the relevant passage from the RAD is quoted). The Claimant denies that he assaulted Ms Heard (see the quotation from the RAR at paragraph 56 above).

Mr Depp said that Ms Heard behaved cruelly towards him at this time and withheld drugs from him that he was allowed or were intended to contribute to his recovery process. I have no doubt that the process of trying to rid himself of the addiction to Roxies was extremely stressful and painful for Mr Depp. However, I have seen notes made by Ms Lloyd. It is apparent from these that Ms Heard (referred to in the notes as ‘patient’s fiancée’) was keeping in close contact with Ms Lloyd and, after his arrival on the island, with Dr Kipper. There is no evidence that she did attempt to withhold from him any medication that he was supposed to have. In his text to Paige Heard, Ms Heard’s mother, on 19^th August 2014 Mr Depp said (see file 6/119/697.41),

On 17^th August 2014 Ms Heard sent a text to Ms Lloyd and Dr Kipper which said (See file 6/119/f697.38),

Mr Depp said that he had been in no condition to push or attack Ms Heard in any way. He said the text from Ms Heard could be explained as part of her ‘insurance policy’.

It was Mr Depp’s evidence that Ms Heard was withholding drugs that he was supposed to have or allowed to have, although he said that she did not do this all of the time and at other times she was very helpful.

In the context of this incident, Mr Depp accepted that there were times when he experienced blackouts. He said in his evidence,

Tara Roberts manages Mr Depp’s property on the island. She never saw Mr Depp behave violently towards Ms Heard. In her declaration in the Virginia libel proceedings, Ms Heard had alleged that a door had been splintered as a result of a kick from Mr Depp. Ms Heard had exhibited a photograph of the door. Ms Roberts said that no door had been broken. As the estate manager she would have known if it had been. In her evidence in these proceedings, Ms Heard accepted that she had made a mistake and the door in the photograph was not in the Bahamas.

Ms Roberts never saw Mr Depp assault Ms Heard. She never saw any bruises on Ms Heard.

My findings regarding Incident 5 are as follows:

The Defendants plead this in the RAD (see paragraph 57 above). The Claimant denies it (see the quotation from the RAR at paragraph 58 above).

Ms Heard says that an incident of violence took place shortly before 17^th December 2014. She dates this from a text message which Mr Depp sent her on that date and which said (See file 6/119/F697.48),

Mr Depp’s text is contrite, but he said that he often described himself in derogatory ways. While earlier in his evidence he had said that a man who hit a woman would be described as a ‘savage’, I regard the use of the same term in this text as too slender a basis for the inference that he was apologising for hitting Ms Heard. Since Ms Heard was unable to be specific as to the behaviour of Mr Depp which had prompted his apology, I am not persuaded that his apology was not, for instance, caused instead by a particularly heated verbal argument.

In conclusion I am not persuaded that Incident 6 constituted a physical assault of Ms Heard by Mr Depp.

Mr Sherborne submitted in his written closing submission that no allegation of violence was included in paragraph 8.a.6 of the RAD. In response to this draft judgment, the Defendants drew attention to the terms of paragraph 8.a.6 (quoted at paragraph 57 above) which they argued did plead violence. Whatever the position regarding the pleading, the point remains that the allegation was not put to Mr Depp.

The RAD pleads that on this visit to Tokyo in January 2015 and while in a hotel Mr Depp shoved Ms Heard, slapped her and grabbed her by the hair (see paragraph 59 above). The RAR admits that the couple were in Tokyo at this time, but denies the assaults (see paragraph 60 above).

In her 1^st witness statement Ms Heard said that Mr Depp was using pills and other drugs at the time. He flew into a rage as alleged. He was screaming. She was crying.

In his evidence, Mr Depp said that they were travelling with his children. He denied that he would have taken cocaine or marijuana into Japan when the children were with them. He repeated his denial that he had assaulted Ms Heard, especially when the children were in adjoining rooms.

If he again blamed his behaviour on ‘the monster’, that was part of his effort to placate Ms Heard. It was what she liked to hear.

Mr Deuters and Adam Gough had an exchange of texts regarding monsters at about this time and in reference to the visit to Japan. I have accepted their evidence that these were

Ms Heard agreed that they were in Tokyo for the premiere of one of Mr Depp’s films. She thought the premiere took place about 2 days after the assaults. She wore a backless dress for the event, but that was because she had no injuries on her back as she checked obsessively in the mirror.

So far as Incident 7 is concerned, my conclusions are as follows:

In March 2015 the Claimant was due to film another in the ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ series. Mr Depp was in a gloomy state of mind about his work as can be seen from his text of 6^th March 2015 in which he said (see file 6/119/F697.58),

Mr Depp admitted that when Ms Heard arrived in Australia a few days later he was unhappy with the production and also about his relationship with Ms Heard.

A house was rented for the Claimant and Ms Heard in Queensland. They were to have the house to themselves. Mr Depp said that a team of security guards was hired by the production company for him and Ms Heard.

The Claimant flew out on 11^th February 2015 with Nurse Debbie Lloyd and Mr Deuters. In advance of their arrival, Nathan Holmes, another assistant of the Claimant’s, had gone ahead in order to stock the fridge in the house that was being rented. If there was alcohol in the house, Mr Depp said, it was of no interest to him. He denied that he had

I have quoted the assaults which the Defendants allege took place in Incident 8 in the RAD (see paragraph 61 above). A further allegation is made in the confidential schedule to the RAD. I have quoted the Claimant’s reply (see paragraph 62 above). In the confidential schedule to the RAR he also denies the further allegation in the confidential schedule to the RAD.

Ms Heard’s witness statements provide evidence in support of the allegations in the RAD.

I was shown a number of texts between Mr Holmes and the Claimant. These were referred to as ‘the Australian drugs texts’ which I have mentioned previously. The Claimant agreed that he had asked Mr Holmes to get (illegal) drugs. He said they were for both him and Ms Heard. He wanted cocaine for himself. He said the MDMA which he also asked Mr Holmes to get was for Ms Heard. He said that MDMA did nothing for him (although his text of 4^th October 2014 (see above) suggests otherwise. So, too, does Mr Depp’s text to Nathan Holmes on 8^th March 2015 (see below)).

Ms Heard’s evidence was that she had only taken MDMA (Ecstasy) once with Mr Depp and that had been on a flight to Moscow. There had only been one other occasion when she had taken Ecstasy and Mr Depp had not been present (that had been at Coachella). She was asked about a note by Dr Kipper (which appears to be part of an email or text) in which Dr Kipper said (see file 9/101A/K76),

On 27^th February 2015 Mr Depp texted Mr Holmes (see file 10/O265)

Mr Depp was asked what he was referring to as ‘happy pills’. He said they were the pills which Dr Kipper was prescribing: Xanax for his anxiety; and Adderall because his body was not producing the required serotonin. He said he did not know that Ecstasy was sometimes referred to as ‘happy pills’. He said that he had not directed the request through Nurse Lloyd because she was not on the set the whole time.

Mr Holmes replied 2 minutes later,

Mr Depp was asked if Mr Holmes was also taking prescription drugs. He said he was not. The use of the first person plural had been a royal ‘we’.

On 28^th February 2015 Mr Depp texted Mr Deuters to ask about a ‘wee baggage’ he had been given by ‘Ryan (Munson’s)’ and ‘where the package resided’ (see file 6/119/F697.57). Mr Deuters replied a few minutes later giving the location of the ‘wee package’ in one of Mr Depp’s bags. When it was put to Mr Deuters that he had been involved in passing controlled drugs from Nathan Holmes to Mr Depp, he said that he could not recall the specifics, but it was perfectly possible. At first Mr Deuters said the ‘wee package’ was most likely of marijuana. Later in his cross-examination he accepted that it was more likely a reference to happy pills. Mr Deuters understood ‘happy pills’ to be a reference to Ecstasy or MDMA.

On 3^rd March 2015 Mr Holmes sent a text to Mr Depp saying,

Mr Depp replied on 7^th March 2015,

There is evidence that Mr Holmes was also supplying Mr Depp with cocaine at the time of this Australia. There is, for instance, his text of 25^th February 2015 at 07.19 or at 01.19 on 25^th February 2015 in Queensland). On 2^nd March 2015 Mr Holmes texted Mr Depp (see file 10/O266),

Prior to Ms Heard joining Mr Depp in Australia, she was making a film in London called ‘London Fields’. One of the other actors in that film was Billy Bob Thornton. Mr Depp suspected that Ms Heard was having an affair with Billy Bob Thornton.

Mr Deuters was clearly a huge admirer of Mr Depp. An indicator of this is a text which he sent to Mr Depp on 6^th March 2015 (Mr Deuters was responding to Mr Depp’s text which I have quoted above and in which Mr Depp expressed gloom about his legacy). Mr Deuters said (see file 6/119/F697.58),

Mr Deuters confirmed that this text represented his true feelings both at the time and now.

Mr Deuters was not alone in his loyalty to Mr Depp. Nathan Holmes had the following exchange with Mr Depp on 2^nd March 2015 (see file 10/O268), ‘JD: I don’t need you for that ... no more

Mr Depp confirmed that Dr Kipper flew out to Australia on 5^th March 2015.

Some indication that trouble was brewing can be seen in a text which Mr Deuters sent to Mr Depp’s sister, Christi on 7^th March 2015 (in cross-examination Mr Deuters appeared to regard this text as having been sent after Mr Depp injured his finger, but that does not accord with time and date of the text – 5.12am on 7^th March 2015, even allowing for the time difference in Australia The text is UTC+0 which, for reasons I give at paragraph 340 below, I take to be 3.12pm local time). Mr Deuters wrote (see file 6/119/F697.59),

Three hours later, Mr Deuters sent a further text saying (see file 6/119/F697.60),

Despite that last comment, there does not appear to have been a further text from Mr Deuters that day.

Prior to Ms Heard’s arrival in Australia, Mr Depp’s American lawyers had been encouraging her to enter into a ‘post-nuptial’ agreement. Ms Heard had not agreed to this by the time she arrived in Australia. The Claimant said that Ms Heard was angry at the suggestion. Mr Depp exchanged texts with his sister, Christi, on the subject of Ms Heard’s supposed resistance to signing a ‘post-nuptial’ agreement.

Another indication of Ms Heard’s resistance to an agreement was an email which Dr Kipper sent to Dr Connell Cowan on 27^th January 2015 (see file 4/130/F755) which included,

In her 1^st witness statement, Ms Heard denied that she had been unwilling to sign a ‘prenup’. She said that she had instructed a lawyer to draft one, but Mr Depp had said he did not want one and had threatened to rip up any draft. Neither Mr Depp nor Ms Heard waived privilege in relation to this matter and I did not see any correspondence or statement from the lawyers themselves.

Mr Depp said Ms Heard was not angry with him because she thought he was drinking to excess and taking drugs. It was not the case that he had a bag of Ecstasy pills or that he would take a handful of such pills to make a point that he could do what he pleased.

He denied the accusations that he had been physically violent to Ms Heard as the Defendants alleged and as she had said in her statements. It was not the case that he had threatened to put out a cigarette on his own face. He was not off his face with drink and drugs. Ms Heard had not stormed upstairs or barricaded herself in her room. When she came down, he was not drinking Jack Daniels straight from the bottle and Ms Heard had not tried to take the bottle from him. He had not broken a window in the house. He said he had possibly accused Ms Heard of having affairs including with Billy Bob Thornton.

It is plain that at some point in the argument, part of one of the Claimant’s fingers was sliced off. The Claimant said this had occurred when Ms Heard threw a vodka bottle at him. He denied that he had cut his finger accidentally on a broken bottle or on a plastic wall mounted telephone which was broken. I return below to consider the evidence as to how this occurred. Mr Depp also said that Ms Heard also put out a lit cigarette on his cheek.

The damage to the Claimant’s hand was serious and painful. The Claimant denied that he had delayed seeking medical help. He did agree, however, that he had written graffiti on the wall with his injured finger. At first, he used blood from the finger. He then dipped his injured finger into paint. There are in evidence photographs of some of the graffiti which the Claimant drew. Part of this read, ‘starring Billy Bob Thornton Easy Amber’. Mr Depp agreed that he wrote that. He also wrote on a lampshade ‘Good luck and be careful at the top’. He agreed he had done so at a time when he was severely injured. It was put to Mr Depp that he did not know what he was doing. He replied,

Malcolm Connolly was part of Mr Depp’s security team with him in Australia. He and most of the team were staying at an apartment block in Broad Beach. In his statement made on 25^th February 2020. Mr Connolly recalled getting a call in the middle of the afternoon of 8^th March 2015 from Jerry Judge to say that they were needed urgently to get Mr Depp. They sent texts reporting their progress. The journey took about 40 minutes.

When they arrived, Mr Depp was distraught but coherent. He did not appear drunk to Mr Connolly and he didn’t appear to have taken any drugs. Mr Connolly said that Dr Kipper was not present.

Malcom Connolly said that when he arrived Mr Depp was outside the house and Mr Depp said to him words to the effect of,

Mr Connolly said that Dr Kipper was not at the house at the same time as him. If he did arrive, Mr Connolly said it must have been after he left.

Mr Connolly saw no scratches on Ms Heard’s arms. She was with him for about 30 minutes, although he only saw her from a distance. He did not see a bruise on her.

When help arrived, the record function of a mobile phone was left on and, as a result, there is a recording which lasts about 5 hours. Two partial transcripts have been prepared: one by the Defendants and one by the Claimant. Although much of the recording is indistinct, it is a useful record of those who first encountered the scene.

At one point (according to the Claimant’s transcript), Jerry Judge, Mr Depp’s head of security, and Ben King, the house manager, can be heard saying (see file 5/156a/F978.80 and following),

Mr Deuters agreed that a lot of money had to be spent to compensate the owners for the damage to the house, although he was not aware of the exact amount.

At another point in the accidental recording, Ms Heard is talking with Jerry Judge and says that she called her sister. A woman’s voice continued,

In his evidence Mr Depp said he did not remember a window being broken. However, a photograph exhibited to Mr King’s 2^nd witness statement clearly shows a broken window-pane (see file 2/59(f)/D249).

Mr Depp said that Ms Heard had thrown two bottles at him, one of which had severed part of his finger.

Mr Depp said Ms Heard had been responsible for most of the damage. He said she had been in tears and upset by the suggestion that she should enter into a post-nuptial agreement. Nobody had come into the house because the sound of breaking glass was hard to hear from outside. Mr Depp was asked about the defacement of the painting to which Mr Judge had referred. He said he could have done it but could not remember specifically.

Mr Depp said that he recalled ripping a phone off the wall. That occurred after he had injured his finger. By then, Mr Depp said he was suffering trauma from his injury.

Part of the graffiti written on a mirror in red said, ‘Call Carly Simon, she said it better babe (smiley face)’ – see the photograph in file 6/148B/F894.049 (2545). Mr Depp said that he believed this was a reference to the Carly Simon song ‘You’re so vain’. Mr Depp said that he had not been responsible for writing that. It was not his handwriting. He believed that those words had been written by Ms Heard after he had left the house. He said that she regularly had to have the last word.

Mr Depp agreed that had been responsible for the writing in black in that photograph. He did not agree that the writing in black covered the writing in red.

Mr Depp accepted that he had also written what appeared in a different shade of red. He had written that in the blood that came from his injured finger.

Mr Depp was asked about a different photograph (file 6/148B/F894.050 (2546)). He agreed that he had written the graffiti shown in this picture. It said, ‘Starring Billy Bob [Thornton] Easy Amber’.

Another photograph (file 9/87(h)(ii)/J1.4B) showed a lampshade with graffiti which said, ‘Good luck and be careful at the top’. Mr Depp agreed that he had written this and at a time when he was severely injured. He agreed that he was in considerable pain, but he said he knew exactly what he was doing.

Mr Depp denied urinating outside the front door and doing the same thing inside the house. Mr King, the house manager, said that he smelt no urine inside the house during his cleaning operations.

Mr King, who was also summoned to the house which he was managing on behalf of Mr Depp and Ms Heard, said in his 1^st witness statement,

Mr King’s 2^nd witness statement elaborates on this. He says,

Dr Kipper was in Australia by 8^th March 2015. Mr Depp sent him a text that day which said (see file 7/5(b)/H30.6),

Mr Depp had plainly damaged his finger by the time this was sent. The time of text is recorded as 1.00am but this is ‘UTC + 0’. I consider that I can take judicial notice of the following facts (a) that UTC stands for Co-ordinated Universal Time and is effectively a successor to Greenwich Mean Time (b) that Australian Eastern Standard time (‘AEST’) is UTC + 10; (c) In 2015 Queensland did not observe Daylight Saving Time and adopted Australian Eastern Standard Time all year. Thus, the text to Dr Kipper was sent at 11.00am local time.

On 27^th September 2020 I indicated to the parties that I was minded to take judicial notice of these matters but invited them to make any observations on that issue. Ms Laws on behalf of the Claimant observed in her response of 29^th September 2020 that some of the records had been extracted in Los Angeles and, in those cases, the time was noted as ‘UTC -8’ because Los Angeles is 8 hours behind UTC. I take from this that I must be astute to note whether the recorded time is UTC+0, UTC -8, or some other time. I have in what follows striven to do that.

Dr Kipper’s notes have an entry that he ‘received a text message from client that he had been arguing with wife and that he had cut his finger. According to the patient his assistant and security were on their way to pick him up.’

The text message from Mr Depp did not say that say that Mr Deuters or Mr Depp’s security team were on their way, but at 1.21 UTC (so 11.21 AEST) Dr Kipper had asked Mr Depp to call him and that information may have been communicated in that call.

I note that Dr Kipper’s notes (a) record the date of the text message from Mr Depp as ‘3/7/15’ i.e. 7^th March 2015 and (b) its time as 11.30. Neither of these can be accurate. All the other evidence in the case shows that Mr Depp went to hospital on 8^th March (not 7^th). The timing of the text, as I have shown, was slightly earlier than Dr Kipper said in his note. While there may have been some delay in Dr Kipper reading the text, he must have done so by 11.21 AEST when he sent his text asking Mr Depp to call him. As I have already noted, Dr Kipper was in Australia by this time.

At 1.05 UTC (and so at 11.05 AEST) Mr Depp sent an instant message to Nathan Holmes. Mr Depp said (see file 10/O271),

It seems members of Mr Depp’s security team arrived at the house at about 12.20. At around 1.0pm a message was sent to Dr Kipper asking him to come to the house. Dr Kipper’s note records (see file 4/137/F844),

Dr Kipper dressed the wound to Mr Depp’s finger and at about 3.30pm took Mr Depp to the Emergency Department of the Gold Coast University Hospital where he arrived

Mr Depp was also seen by Dr Sawhney on 8^th March 2015 (although Mr Depp was using the pseudonym Robert Wells). Dr Sawhney recorded (file 4/132/F759),

Mr Depp was due to discuss potential surgical procedures with Dr Sawhney the following day (9^th March 2015). In fact, the operation on Mr Depp’s hand took place in California, not in Australia. The bone was pinned, and a plaster cast was put over it. I was shown a photograph (taken on 18^th March 2015) of the cast which had pictures of little dinosaurs on it.

Neither the hospital, nor Dr Sawhney, nor Dr Kipper made any mention of a cigarette burn to Mr Depp’s cheek.

Very shortly after this, on 15^th March 2015 Dr Kipper ceased to be Mr Depp’s doctor. In an email to Dr Cowan, of the same date, Dr Kipper explained that he had taken this step (file 4/136/F764),

It seems that Dr Kipper resumed his professional relationship with Mr Depp a short time later, since on 30^th May 2015 he wrote a letter ‘to whom it may concern’ describing Mr Depp and Ms Heard as his patients.

Ms Heard was seeing a psychotherapist, Dr Connell Cowan. While she was in Australia she called him on 8^th March 2015. His note of the conversation included the following (file 9/133/K255),

Ms Heard flew back to Los Angeles on 9^th March 2015 in the company of Ben King. Mr King’s witness statement said that on the flight, Ms Heard asked him,

Ms Heard said that she did not recall having that conversation with Mr King. She said if she had, she would have been referring to Mr Depp rather than to herself.

However, in the course of the recording known as ‘Argument 2’ Ms Heard says,

In his first witness statement, Mr King said that he saw no cuts or bruises on Ms Heard. In his second witness statement (made on 12^th July 2020), he said that on one arm,

Mr Connolly was absolutely sure that he did not see any injury to Ms Heard’s arms, although he only saw her from a distance.

There is a photograph (file 6/148B/F894.051 (2549)) which Ms Heard said showed her arm with the scars still apparent. Ms Heard said the photograph was taken, she thought, in 2019.

On 11^th March 2015 Ms Heard saw Dr Cowan for a 1-hour session of individual psychotherapy. He recorded that she was ‘very anxious and distressed’ and Dr Cowan asked her to check in with Dr Kipper.

On 12^th March 2015 Chad Oman sent a text. Mr Deuters explained that Chad Oman was one of the executive producers of the film that Mr Depp was making. Mr Oman’s text, which appears to be a press release was sent to Mr Deuters. It began (see file 6/119/F697.62),

In her evidence, Ms Heard confirmed her account that Mr Depp had put out a cigarette on his own cheek. He had done that in her presence. It appeared to be a deliberate act. He had said to her he was already in pain. She said Mr Depp was under the influence of cocaine and MDMA at the time.

She denied that she had been responsible for any of the damage to the house. She said a window had been broken and she had been startled by a bird who had flown through the damaged pane. There had been blood on the carpet and on the floor. There had been graffiti written on the walls, mirrors, and lampshades. A cushion appeared to have been set on fire. The carpet had been burned in the surrounding area. In various places there was food spread around. While this was being done, Mr Depp seemed out of his mind.

Ms Heard denied that she had been responsible for the injury to Mr Depp’s finger. She was asked at what stage it had occurred. She said that it was about 24 hours into his rage. She said that it was after Mr Depp had held her up against the fridge. According to her evidence, he said that she had ruined his life. He said that he wished he had never met her. He threatened to slice up her face. She said she pushed or punched him to get away or in defence of herself. She was asked how Mr Depp did injure his finger. She said that he punched the wall a few times. There was a wall mounted phone. He picked

Kristina Sexton said that she met Ms Heard shortly after Ms Heard’s return from Australia in 2015. Ms Heard had said that they had had a horrible time. Ms Heard had said that Mr Depp had gone on a ‘bender’ and they had been fighting the entire time (I note that the witnesses generally tended to use the expression ‘fighting’ to refer to verbal as well as physical arguments). Ms Sexton said it was in 2016, a few days after Ms Heard had filed for divorce that Ms Heard spoke about the physical violence which Mr Depp had subjected her to during the Australia trip. She said that he had tried to strangle her and attacked her with bottles – throwing bottles at her and breaking bottles against the wall. Ms Sexton gives further evidence about Ms Heard’s account of Mr Depp’s attacks in the Confidential part of her witness statement.

In her deposition for the Virginia libel proceedings on 18^th December 2019, Ms Sexton said that she had understood from Ms Heard that Mr Depp had accidentally cut his finger on glass from a broken bottle.

Whitney Henriquez, Ms Heard’s sister, saw Ms Heard when she returned to Los Angeles from Australia. Ms Heard relayed to her in headline terms what had happened. Ms Henriquez said,

In her witness statement of 16^th June 2020 Rocky Pennington said that Ms Heard visited her after her return from Australia. Ms Pennington said that she could see gashes on Ms Heard’s arms from her wrists to her elbows. In cross-examination Ms Pennington said that one arm was cut worse than the other. Ms Heard told Ms Pennington that the soles of her feet were also cut. Ms Heard said that Mr Depp had thrown a bottle at her; there had been broken glass all over the ground which was how she had cut her feet. Ms Pennington also said that Ms Heard told her that Mr Depp had ripped off her nightgown as part of his assault. Ms Pennington said that Mr Depp had never suggested that Ms Heard had been responsible for the injury to his finger.

In his evidence, Mr Deuters agreed that the story of Mr Depp injuring his hand could have been a public relations disaster: it was not the image which Mr Depp’s team wanted to be associated with him. That chimes with a text sent to Mr Deuters from an unidentified sender (but which may have been Christi Dembrowski) and which said (file 6/119/F697.61),

My conclusions on incident 8 are as follows:

I have set out the Defendants’ allegations regarding this incident in the RAD (see paragraph 63 above) and the Claimant’s reply in the RAR (see paragraph 64 above).

In her 1^st witness statement Ms Heard said that the argument started because she discovered text messages which she said showed he had been cheating on her. Ms Heard said that she confronted him about it ‘and he reacted badly’. He started smashing things up all around the apartment. Ms Heard says that she went to the nest door apartment where her sister, Whitney, was staying. She says she and Mr Depp shouted at each other and ‘at some point he started hitting me.’ She says that Whitney stood between the two of them. She says that Whitney was standing at the top of the stairs. Ms Heard was afraid that her sister was going to fall down the stairs. She says that she lunged at Mr Depp to protect Whitney. Ms Heard said that Mr Depp grabbed her by the hair with one hand while repeatedly hitting her in the head with the other.

In her declaration dated 10^th April 2019 in the Virginia libel proceedings (see file 3/101/F318), Ms Heard added that Mr Depp’s hand was still in a cast following the incident in Australia (and the injury to one of the fingers of his right hand) . Ms Heard said that at that point Mr Depp’s security stepped in and separated them. She admitted that in the course of this argument, she struck Mr Depp in order, she said, to protect Whitney.

In cross-examination Ms Heard agreed that Mr Depp still had his hand in the plaster cast (with the pictures of the baby dinosaurs on it) when incident 9 took place. She said that Mr Depp hit both her and Whitney with the cast. She agreed that she had not mentioned the cast in her statement, but she had not included every detail about the incident. It was put to her that if Mr Depp had hit her with a cast on his hand, that would be a primary feature which she would wish to record. She denied that was the case. She said that Incident 9 occurred only a few weeks after her return from Australia. In comparison with what had occurred then, Incident 9 was not a big deal.

In her witness statement Ms Henriquez corroborated what Ms Heard had to say. She added the following:

In her cross-examination, Ms Henriquez also agreed that Mr Depp still had the cast on his hand at the time of Incident 9. Mr Depp had grabbed Ms Heard with the hand which was not in the cast and hit her with the hand which did have the cast on.

Ms Henriquez maintained in cross-examination that her sister had not thrown anything. It was late at night. Ms Heard was in her pyjamas. Ms Heard did not have her purse. Ms Heard did not drink Red Bull.

In his trial witness statement, Mr Depp agreed that there had been an argument at which both Ms Heard and her sister were present. This was around 22^nd March 2015. He denied that he was violent to either of them. He said that he summoned help from Debbie Lloyd and Travis McGivern, one of his security guards. He said that they arrived while he and Ms Heard were in the middle of their (verbal) argument. He said that Ms Heard threw a can of Red Bull at him which struck him in the back. She also threw her purse at him which Mr McGivern intercepted. Ms Heard also managed to punch him which left him with visible swelling and injury. Shortly after this he left with Mr McGivern and Nurse Lloyd.

In cross-examination, Mr Depp denied that he had been responsible for the damage in PH5 that could be seen in the photos. He suggested that these were part of the dossier which Ms Heard was collecting as her ‘insurance policy’.

Mr Depp also denied assaulting Ms Heard as the Defendants have alleged. The incident occurred shortly after the incident in Australia and while Mr Depp still had the cast on his hand. He said it would not have been physically possible for him to assault her as she alleged.

Travis McGivern corroborated Mr Depp’s account of the incident in his trial witness statement. In his cross-examination, Mr McGivern said that on the night of 23^rd March 2015 Mr Depp contacted him and asked him to bring Debbie Lloyd over to the Eastern Columbia Building. Mr McGivern said that he went to fetch Ms Lloyd from the hotel where she was staying. They met Ms Heard in the lobby of the building. Ms Lloyd and Ms Heard stayed downstairs, while Mr McGivern went up alone. In his statement he had said ‘When Ms Lloyd and I entered his residence...’ In cross examination he said that was inaccurate because he had gone up to PH3 alone. Ms Heard and Ms Lloyd followed him. He said that that was when the argument escalated. He recalled Mr Depp being very angry, but he did not recall the nature of the argument or whether it involved Ms Heard accusing Mr Depp of having an affair with a woman called Rochelle. He did not recall Mr Depp hitting Ms Heard with the hand that had the cast. Mr Depp did not hit her at all.

Ms Lloyd did not give evidence, but I was shown two texts sent on 23^rd March 2015 (the time recorded for the first was 4.00pm (UTC+0)) which, since Los Angeles was 7 hours behind UTC would be equivalent to 9.00am Pacific Daylight Time) from her to Stephen Deuters. These said (see file 6/119/F697.64),

Mr Depp maintained that he had done nothing violent to Ms Heard. Mr McGivern also maintained that there had been one-sided aggression (and that by Ms Heard). It was not correct that both Mr Depp and Ms Heard had had to be restrained.

Kevin Murphy did not refer to Incident 9 in either of his statements. However, in crossexamination he was asked about the photograph in file 6/148B/F894.071. This was part of a series of text messages. From file 6/119/F697.65 it can be seen that Whitney Henriquez sent the texts to Mr Murphy. The text exchange said (beginning at 6.57),

Mr Murphy agreed that he went to the apartment and cleared up the mess which could be seen in the photographs.

My findings as to Incident 9 are as follows,

I have quoted the allegation regarding this incident (see paragraph 65) and the Claimant’s reply (see paragraph 66).

In her 1^st witness statement, Ms Heard says that Mr Depp held her by the neck. She thought he would kill her. She says she was in fear of her life.

In the course of the audio recording, referred to as ‘Argument 2’, Mr Depp said this (see file 4/154/F929),

Ms Heard kept a diary from time-to-time. In her 5^th witness statement, she refers to her entry dated July 27 Singapore. This included the following (file 5.1/196(b)/1207.5),

Based on this entry Ms Heard dated the attack in Incident 10 as 26/27 July, not August as she had said in her 1^st witness statement.

In her cross-examination, Ms Heard was asked about a photograph at file 11/168/P80. She agreed that this picture was taken during the train journey. She denied that the photograph showed an injury to Mr Depp’s nose. She denied that, far from her being injured during the journey, it had been Mr Depp who was injured.

In his cross-examination, Mr Depp denied that he had hit Ms Heard around the face and tore off her tee shirt. In none of his witness statements, nor in his oral evidence, did Mr Depp say specifically that Ms Heard had been violent to him in the course of this incident.

Mr Connolly had not mentioned Incident 10 in his witness statement, but he was allowed to give further evidence in chief in which he said that he had been present. The train journey had been part of Mr Depp’s and Ms Heard’s honeymoon. He said that the party had not taken over the whole train (confirming what Mr Depp had said in this regard). He said that he had been in contact with the couple over dinner and on excursions. He said he would have noticed if Ms Heard had suffered injuries on the trip. She did not.

In cross-examination Mr Connolly said that he had been in the same carriage as Mr Depp and Ms Heard, but in a different cabin. His had been about 3-4 doors down from theirs. He agreed that if a fight had occurred between Ms Heard and Mr Depp at 3.30am, he would never have known about it. In re-examination he said he saw no injury on Ms Heard. She never complained that Mr Depp had hit her.

So far as Incident 10 is concerned my findings are:

I have quoted what is alleged in the RAD (see paragraph 67 above) and what the Claimant says in Reply (see paragraph 68 above).

In her 1^st witness statement Ms Heard said that Mr Depp was using a lot of drugs at this time, especially cocaine and weed (marijuana). She gave evidence in support of the Defendants’ allegation in Incident 11. She said that the incident had been in two parts: the first was in the course of the dinner when she and Mr Depp had gone up and across to their bedroom in PH3 and he had thrown a bottle or decanter at her. It had missed but the glass had broken; the second part was later that evening, after the guests had left and he had assaulted her. She said that this had all occurred on Thanksgiving 2015. In 2015 Thanksgiving occurred on Thursday 26^th November, although the holiday would continue for that weekend.

Mr Depp and Ms Heard did have a dinner party on 26^th November 2015. Ms Heard invited her nurse, Erin Boerum to attend, which she did. Ms Boerum’s note of the evening says (see file 9/132/K207),

Some photographs were in evidence which were dated 27^th November 2015, which Ms Heard said were not taken before she was assaulted by Mr Depp. She said her fights with him did not take place in front of everyone but in private.

I was also shown two videos which were taken over Thanksgiving 2015. In addition to Ms Heard and Mr Depp, others who were visible included David Heard, the father of Ms Heard and Ms Henriquez. Ms Pennington was another guest.

Ms Pennington said that, at one point, Ms Heard,

Ms Pennington said that the dinner had not ended when this occurred. It had been a happy family gathering up to this point. Ms Pennington agreed that there was no bedroom in PH5 (where the dinner was taking place) but she said that she had gone upstairs and crossed over to the bedroom of PH3. Ms Heard had told her that Mr Depp had thrown the bottle. Ms Pennington said that on other occasions she had taken photographs. She didn’t on this occasion because she did not have her mobile phone (and its camera facility) with her.

In his closing submissions, Mr Sherborne commented that the allegation which constitutes Incident 11 had not been put to Mr Depp at all. In EPI Environmental Technologies Inc v Symphony Plastic Technologies [2004] EWHC 2945, [2005] 1 WLR 3456, Peter Smith J. said at [74(iii)],

In this case I agree with Mr Sherborne that the incident should have been put to Mr Depp so that I could have the opportunity of assessing his response. I accept Ms Heard’s comment that the arguments with Mr Depp tended to take place in the absence of others. The two videos of the meal show a convivial occasion, but that is not inconsistent with Mr Depp’s behaviour being different out of the sight and sound of others. Ms Heard’s description of his assaults on this occasion are in line with other of her allegations which I have accepted. On this occasion, Ms Pennington also saw the debris left over from the incident. I do not regard it as significant that Ms Pennington omitted to say in her statement that she crossed over to a different penthouse from the one where the dinner was taking place. However, the omission to put this incident to Mr Depp means that I do not accept that it is proven.

I add, for convenience at this point, that I do not accept the more general attack in Appendix A to Mr Sherborne’s written closing submissions regarding the Defendants’ omission to put particular details of other incidents to Mr Depp. In his crossexamination, Mr Depp made it clear that his case was that he had not hit Ms Heard at all (with a possible exception to which I shall come). In respect of those other incidents, I had sufficient opportunity to understand his answer to the Defendants’ allegations.

The Defendants’ allegations regarding this incident are quoted in paragraph 69 above. The Claimant’s reply is set out at paragraph 70 above.

In her 1^st witness statement Ms Heard described this as ‘one of the worst and most violent nights of our relationship.’ Her witness statement gave evidence in line with the RAD which I have quoted. As well as grabbing her by the hair, she said that Mr Depp head-butted her, hitting her on the nose with his forehead as well as the other pleaded assaults.

She said that Rocky Pennington came in and they called a nurse to do a concussion check over the phone as she was suffering horrible headaches and continued to do so for a week.

She and Ms Pennington took photographs of the bed which had been splintered, Ms Heard’s face, the clump of her hair which had been on the carpet and graffiti, which Mr Depp had written on the kitchen counter-top in gold pen and which said, ‘Why be a fraud? All is such bullshit.’

Ms Heard was due to appear the following day (16^th December 2015) on James Corden’s ‘Late Late Show’.

At 11.00pm Ms Heard sent a text to her psychotherapist, Dr Cowan saying (see file

On 15^th December 2015 at 11.52 pm Ms Heard sent a message to her publicist, Jodi Gottlieb which said (see file 2/60/E76 ),

In her statement, Ms Heard said that she pretended she had had an accident because she didn’t want to say what had happened to her.

At 00.44am on 16^th December 2015 Ms Heard began a series of texts with her friend iO Tillett Wright which said (see file 7/14/H82 (time recalculated)),

Ms Heard said that she decided to do the James Corden show because she could not cancel her appearance at the last minute. She said that she was in some pain. She said that a lot of make-up was put on her to cover up the bruises and red lipstick to cover up her bleeding lip.

At 2.49am Ms Heard sent a text to Jessica Kovacevic which said (see file 8/78(a)/I28.2),

Ms Heard said that a day or so later she went to Dr Kipper’s office and saw a nurse called Lisa Beane.

Ms Heard said that on 20^th December she said to Mr Depp that he had head-butted her. Ms Heard said that Mr Depp responded by saying he was a Fuck up. She exhibited an exchange of messages with Ms Pennington in which she relayed this conversation.

In cross-examination, Ms Heard denied that she had manipulated the photographs taken on 16^th December in any way. When Ms Boerum had visited her on the 17^th December she had had 2 black eyes, bruises to her scalp and chin, clumps of her hair were missing. In her evidence Ms Heard denied that she had bitten on her lip to make it bleed.

She said that she had appeared on the James Corden show, but her injuries had been concealed by make-up applied by Melanie Inglessis. She said that Samantha McMillen had seen her only once the make-up had been applied by Ms Inglessis. Because of the make-up, the injuries to her face could not be seen in the stills from the show.

In re-examination, Ms Heard denied that she had photoshopped the pictures taken of her on 16^th December or had asked anyone else to do so. She had worn heavy make-up for the James Corden show only to hide her injuries. She had not pulled out her own hair for the photos.

In her witness statement, Ms Pennington said that Ms Heard had asked her to come over. She could see that Ms Heard’s hair was bloody from where a chunk had been pulled out, her face was red and her nose was swelling up. Her lip was bleeding. She said that Mr Depp had head butted her. Ms Pennington said that they called for assistance from a private nurse who was part of the concierge medical services which Mr Depp and Ms Heard used. Ms Pennington took pictures of Ms Heard’s face (see file 6/148(c)/F894.107-F894.120 and F894.124) which the metadata shows were taken on the morning and afternoon of 16^th December 2015) and of the apartment including the graffiti on the counter-top (file 6/148(c)/F894.095).

Ms Pennington said that Ms Heard gave an account of what had happened. This was broadly in line with her subsequent statement. Ms Pennington said that the next day she and Ms Heard were exhausted and Ms Heard was shaken, upset and trying to pull herself together for the show.

Samantha McMillen was styling her, Ms Ingelssis was doing her make-up and someone called Adir was doing Ms Heard’s hair. Ms Pennington says that she remembered Adir saying that Ms Heard should not touch her hair because he had styled it to cover up where the clump had been pulled out.

Melanie Inglessis gave evidence pursuant to a witness summons. She had not provided a witness statement, but the Defendants had served a witness summary. CPR r.32.5(3) did not therefore apply and she gave evidence in chief in the traditional manner.

Ms Inglessis said that she was a professional make-up artist. She had known Ms Heard since April 2015. She had visited Ms Heard on 15^th December 2015. She was able to see the graffiti. Ms Heard was in between sad and upset and furious. Ms Heard told her that she and Mr Depp had had a fight. He had tried to suffocate her with a pillow. She felt he had tried to kill her. He had dragged her by the hair.

On 16^th December 2015, Ms Inglessis had applied make-up prior to Ms Heard’s appearance on the TV show. Ms Ingelssis said that Ms Heard had some bruising to her eyes, the left eye a little more than the right eye. The ridge of her nose was a little red and swollen. Ms Inglessis had tried with make-up to conceal the bruises. She had no choice but to use red lipstick to conceal the injury to Ms Heard’s lip. These efforts successfully concealed Ms Heard’s injuries which were not visible after the make-up had been applied. She agreed that she had been good friends with Ms Heard in 2015.

When Ms Heard met with Mr Depp in San Francisco in July 2016, the following exchange took place between them. The transcript of their conversation was not agreed.

Mr Depp denied that he had assaulted Ms Heard as alleged in the RAD. He agreed that there had been an argument between them that evening. He agreed that he had written graffiti in gold pen on the counter-top, ‘Why be a fraud? All is such bullshit...’ He had not been in the best of moods but he denied that he was under the influence of drink or drugs. Kevin Murphy had taken photographs of what Ms Heard said were clumps of her hair (file 6/148(c)/F894.06), but Mr Depp was not able to confirm whether that was what they were. He had not caused the damage which could be seen in one photograph (with a lamp on its side, a pile of books and some bottles (file 6/148(c)/F894.097). He agreed that another photograph appeared to show a splinter of wood missing from the bed (file 6/148(c)/F894.099), but he did not know how it had come off. He was shown a photograph of Ms Heard with what was said to be the beginning of two blackeyes. He

He said he had been assaulted by Ms Heard. Sean Bett had taken photographs of a scratch to his nose and an abrasion and swelling under his left eye (file 6/148(c)/F894.092-F894.094). Mr Depp said that, at one stage, to try and restrain Ms Heard he had put his arms around her. It was possible that at that stage, their heads had come into contact with each other. If that had occurred, it had been accidental. He accepted that this account of the possible explanation for injuries to Ms Heard had not been given before. Mr Depp agreed that his admission that he had, or may have, headbutted Ms Heard was a very important detail. He was asked why then it was omitted from his witness statement. He responded that he had not noticed that it was not included in his witness statement. He said,

Mr Depp also said that Ms Heard frequently had chapped lips. Scabs would form and she would bite them off with her teeth. If she was seen with a cut to her lower lip, that might be the explanation.

Ms Heard sent a text message to Kevin Murphy on 16^th December 2015 in which she said (see file 7/15/H102),

Mr Murphy went to the Eastern Columbia Building on 16^th December. In his 1^st statement he said that he found Ms Heard sitting on the edge of the bed crying. She complained to him that Mr Depp had hit her in the face several times and pulled out her hair. He said that he had been standing about 4 feet away from Ms Heard. He was suspicious as Ms Heard was not wearing any make-up and there were no marks, bruises, cuts, redness or swelling to her face. And there were no apparent areas on her head where her hair had been pulled out. She pointed to a tuft of hair and said that was what Mr Depp had pulled out. Mr Murphy photographed the tuft of hair to which Ms Heard had pointed. He also took a photograph of the splinter from the bed (file 2/42/D91D93). Mr Murphy was also shown a photograph of Ms Heard’s face (file 6/148C/F894.103). He denied that that was how Ms Heard had looked when he saw her on 16^th December. The metadata shows that this photograph was taken on 16^th December 2015 at 14.39.

On the following day (16^th December 2015) Ms Heard, as I have said, appeared as a guest on James Corden’s ‘Late Late Show’. Samantha McMillen is a stylist who, in 2015, worked as a stylist for Ms Heard. She continues to be (as she has been since 2002) a stylist for Mr Depp. She said that she spent much of the afternoon and early evening of 16^th December with Ms Heard. She was with her in good light, at close range. Ms Heard was wearing no make-up. Ms McMillen said that Ms Heard did not have any visible marks, bruises, cuts or injuries to her face or any other part of her body. She was shown photographs said to have been taken of Ms Heard on 16^th December. Ms McMillen said that was not how she remembered Ms Heard appearing that day.

Although Ms McMillen is a stylist, she did not apply Ms Heard’s make-up before her appearance on the show. That was done by Melanie Inglessis. Ms McMillen said she was present when it was done. She did not recall the make-up being any heavier than usual.

Ms McMillen was shown a photograph of Ms Heard at file 6/148C/F894.103 (which, according to the metadata on the following page, had been taken on 16^th December 2015). Ms McMillen said that was not how she remembered Ms Heard looking on 16th December. Her answer was the same when shown the photograph at file 6/148C/F894.107.

Ms McMillen said that after the show, Ms Heard approached her and said, ‘Can you believe that I did that show with two black eyes?’ This surprised Ms McMillen, she said, because Ms Heard appeared to be uninjured. She did not have black eyes.

Erin Boerum was, as I have said, a nurse whom Ms Heard consulted. She was also a friend. She had attended the Thanksgiving dinner on 26^th November 2015 and would attend the dinner which Ms Heard gave to celebrate her 30^th birthday on 21^st April 2016.

On 16^th December 2015 Ms Heard telephoned Ms Boerum and reported that there had been an argument the previous evening with her husband. Ms Boerum’s note of the call reads (see file 9/132/K208),

In the early hours of 16^th December 2015 Ms Heard sent Ms Boerum texts which said

On 16^th December 2015 Stephen Deuters sent a text to Jenna Gates to say (file 6/119/F697.122),

There is a note in the papers of Dr Cowan, Ms Heard’s psychotherapist, that Ms Heard sent a text message on 16^th December 2015. (Another copy of the text at file 7/13(a)/H81.1 supports the conclusion that this text was in fact sent on 15^th December). The message said,

The following day (so 17^th December 2015) Ms Boerum noted (file 9/132/K208),

An exchange of messages with Ms Boerum on 17^th December 2015 confirms that Ms Boerum was unable to stay long, but would only be able to drop off Ms Heard’s medication. Later that evening (17^th December) the following exchange between Ms Boerum and Ms Heard took place (file 7/19(a)/H127.1-2),

In her re-examination, Ms Heard said that she had not asked Ms Boerum to carry out a clinical examination of her on 17^th December. Ms Boerum was in a rush and had only come by to drop off Ms Heard’s medication.

It seems that Ms Heard did see Dr Cowan on 17^th December 2015. His note of their meeting included the following (see file 9/133/K277),

A number of further photographs were taken of Ms Heard’s face and scalp. The metadata shows them having been taken on 17^th December 2015 (see file 6/148C/F894.132-F894.145A).

On 18^th December Ms Boerum noted that Ms Heard stated that she had gone to Dr Kipper’s office and, in his absence, had been seen by NP [I assume Nurse Practitioner] Monroe-T.

There is a note of a phone consultation on 17^th December 2015. The note has Dr Kipper’s signature, but from the context it cannot have been him whom Ms Heard saw. From the deposition of Lisa Beane, from Dr Kipper’s office, on 13^th December 2019, it seems that Dr Kipper’s practice was to sign notes prepared by someone else and which he had seen and approved. Ms Beane said that Ms Heard would have been seen by Mr Monroe Tinker on 18^th December 2015. The material parts of the note read (see file

Mr Depp was in reasonably regular communication with Ms Heard’s father, David Heard. On 30^th December 2015, Mr Depp sent a text which included the following (see file 10/147(a)/O124),

Later in December 2015 Mr Depp and Ms Heard went to his island in the Bahamas. Tara Roberts is the manager of the estate. She was shown the photograph at file 9/148/F894.132. She said that that was not how Ms Heard looked when she saw her at Christmas in 2015.

In his witness statement Sean Bett did not refer to Incident 12. In his re-examination, Mr Bett said that he had seen Mr Depp injured on 15^th December 2015. He had taken photographs of Mr Depp then on his mobile phone (see file 6/148C/F894.092-F894.094 (298-300). The photos are date stamped ‘15^th December 2015’. On the photograph at F894.092 Mr Bett said there could be seen a scratch on Mr Depp’s nose, which Mr Bett estimated at 1 ½ - 2 inches long. Mr Bett said that Mr Depp had told him that the injuries had been caused by Ms Heard slapping him in the face a few times.

This was another incident in relation to which the Defendants applied to rely on expert evidence. Again, I shall defer consideration of that application until incident 14. It is sufficient to say at this point that I rejected the application.

My findings in relation to Incident 12 are as follows:

Mr Depp and Ms Heard spent Christmas 2015 on his island in the Bahamas. In Tara Roberts’ statement of 11^th May 2020 she spoke of this time. Ms Heard responded in her 5^th witness statement (26^th June 2020). In the course of that witness statement she alleged that Mr Depp had assaulted her again. In a Confidential Schedule to that witness statement she made further allegations as to what had taken place.

The Defendants did not apply to re-re-amend their defence. Nor did the Claimant apply to re-re-amend his reply. Some evidence was given about these matters by Ms Roberts and by Ms Heard in the course of their testimony and Mr Sherborne in his closing submissions referred to it. When I came to write this judgment, my preliminary view was that, since this was not a pleaded particular, it had no bearing on the issues I had to decide, but I gave the parties the opportunity to make written submissions on that issue. I received written submissions from each dated Tuesday 29^th September 2020 and submissions in reply dated Friday 2^nd October 2020. I had made no provision for any further submissions, but later, on 2^nd October, Ms Wilson on behalf of the Claimant sent a further email to my clerk. I have taken all of these into account.

However, my preliminary view remains the same. What took place in the Bahamas at Christmas 2015 is not part of the pleaded case of either party, and it is not necessary for me to resolve the disputed evidence about what then occurred. The Claimant argued that the issues having been raised, fairness to him required them to be resolved by the court. I do not accept this. The function of pleadings is to delimit what the court needs to resolve. The truth or otherwise of each side’s allegations regarding December 2015 in the Bahamas is neither necessary nor proportionate to address.

I have set out the allegations regarding this incident in the RAD (see paragraph 71 above) and the Claimant’s reply in the RAR (see paragraph 72 above).

Ms Heard’s birthday is 22^nd April. In 2016 she was 30. She held a dinner to celebrate on the day before her birthday at the Eastern Columbia Building. Earlier that same evening, the Claimant had a business meeting with Edward White, his accountant; his sister, Christi Dembrowski; and others. The Claimant was given catastrophic news about his financial affairs. A former business manager had allegedly inadequately and/or dishonestly represented him and had lost him several hundreds of millions of dollars as a result. In addition, he was told that federal and state taxes had not been paid and, in consequence, he had a tax bill of several millions of dollars.

Mr White was also asked about the financial settlement which Ms Heard received on her divorce. He said that she received $7 million dollars tax free. She was able to keep all her own earnings. In addition, Mr Depp paid legal fees of about $500,000. She was

In cross-examination, Mr White was also asked about the Claimant’s continuing earnings (notwithstanding the losses to which I have referred). Mr White did not have those figures immediately to hand but offered to try and find them. After Mr White had concluded his evidence, there was discussion as to whether his offer should be taken up. I ruled that it should not. Ms Wass wished to establish that the amount which Ms Heard had received on her divorce was less than she would have been entitled to under California law. However, Mr White did not have the necessary expertise to give opinion evidence on California divorce law. Nor had the necessary permission been granted pursuant to CPR r.35.4(1) for such evidence to be adduced. Mr White would have been able to give evidence about Mr Depp’s earnings, but that evidence would not have been relevant in the absence of expert evidence about its impact on her entitlement on divorce.

The business meeting finished about 9.00pm-9.30pm. The Claimant said that he probably smoked some marijuana after the meeting to calm his nerves. He arrived late at the dinner party at about 10.00pm. Sean Bett said that he drove Mr Depp to Ms Heard’s dinner party after the meeting. There are texts from Mr Depp apologising for his delay and asking Ms Heard to go ahead with the meal anyway. Ms Heard was upset by his late arrival.

Ms Heard said that when Mr Depp arrived for her party, he was drunk and high on drugs. Erin Boerum, who was a guest at the dinner party wrote a note of the evening in which she recorded that when Mr Depp arrived he was ‘coherent oriented and sociable’ and he was affectionate towards Ms Heard. Ms Heard agreed with that description but said that Mr Depp was also inebriated and high.

She said that after they had gone to their bedroom Mr Depp picked up a magnum sized bottle of champagne and threw it at her. She said the bottle missed her but hit the wall. Other glass was broken. She said he grabbed her by the hair and pushed her to the ground where she scraped her knees on broken glass. Mr Depp further pushed and shoved her. She said he left a note for her saying, ‘Happy Fucking birthday’.

Mr Depp said that, after the guests had left, he had been tired and had gone to bed. He said that he wanted to avoid a confrontation with Ms Heard. He denied that he had assaulted Ms Heard as the RAD alleged. He denied throwing a wine bottle in her direction. He said that Ms Heard had punched him in the face as he lay in bed reading. This was the ‘haymaker’ punch that he mentioned in the secretly recorded conversation in San Francisco in July 2016. He said he grabbed her arms to try to stop her hitting him again.

Mr Depp left the Eastern Columbia Building and was driven by Sean Bett to his house on Sweetzer Avenue. Mr Bett said that Mr Depp was visibly injured and he took a photograph of the left side of Mr Depp’s face, a photograph he exhibited to his statement. In his evidence in chief, he corrected this: the photograph exhibited to his witness statement was not taken on 21^st April 2015. He said the exhibited photo had not been taken by him, although it was similar to one he had taken.

In cross-examination, Mr Bett agreed that the photograph he had exhibited to his statement was the same as appears at file 9/87h(iv)/J1.4D. This version of the picture has a date stamp of 23^rd March 2015. It could not have been taken after the birthday party on 21^st April 2016. Mr Bett said that the photograph (without the date stamp) had been provided to him by Adam Waldman, one of the Claimant’s US attorneys. He maintained that he had seen Mr Depp with a visible injury when he had collected him from the Eastern Columbia Building on 21^st April 2016.

The following day (22^nd April 2016), Ms Heard and some of her friends went to a music festival at Coachella. Ms Heard agreed she had taken MDMA during the weekend visit to Coachella. The drugs had disagreed with her and she had felt sick. She had not, however, vomited in a car park while at Coachella. Sterling Jenkins who had driven the party to the event and who said she had vomited in a car park must have confused her with her sister Whitney (who was pregnant at the time). Although Ms Boerum (who had been a member of their party) also said that Ms Heard had vomited, Ms Boerum was incorrect. Ms Heard said that she had felt awful and she had felt like vomiting. She had spent 24 hours in bed regretting taking the drugs she had.

In his closing submissions, Mr Sherborne submitted that the Defendants were willing to embrace Ms Boerum’s observations when it suited them, but sought to disown them when it did not. That’s as may be, but Ms Boerum was not always accurate in her notes. Her note of her first encounter with Ms Heard on 27^th August 2014 said (see file 4/108/F622),

Ms Henriquez in her witness statement confirmed that she had been pregnant (which was why she had gone to bed early on the night of the birthday party). She had, though, taken part in the trip to Coachella. Ms Henriquez said that she had been sick as a result of her pregnancy and she had vomited several times that weekend.

Kristina Sexton was another of the guests at Ms Heard’s birthday party dinner. She said that Mr Depp arrived 2-3 hours after Ms Sexton. She said he was clearly drunk. His speech was slurred and he could not hold himself up properly.

Ms Sexton had given a deposition for the purpose of the Virginia libel action on 30^th August 2019. In the course of that she had said that Mr Depp had been upstairs in the apartment (see file 4/105/F506-507 (internal pages 88-90)). In her cross-examination in the present trial, Ms Sexton said that it had been her understanding that Mr Depp was upstairs in the apartment. She did not know that he had in fact been at a long business meeting.

The party was driven to Coachella by Starling Jenkins III, who had worked for Mr Depp for many years. In his witness statement he said that he saw no marks or bruises of any kind on Ms Heard’s face or body. During the weekend Ms Heard had not made any allegations of domestic violence.

Ms Pennington was another guest at Ms Heard’s birthday dinner. She did not witness any of the argument between Mr Depp and Ms Heard that night, but she heard Ms Heard’s account of it the next day when they went to the Coachella festival.

My findings in relation to Incident 13 are as follows:

The day after the birthday dinner (22^nd April 2016) Hilda Vargas, who has been a cleaner and housekeeper for the Claimant for many years, arrived at the Eastern Columbia Building to clean PH3 (where the Claimant and Ms Heard were living) as was her routine. Neither the Claimant nor Ms Heard was present. On the bed she was horrified and disgusted to find a pile of faeces. Ms Heard and the Claimant had two Yorkshire terriers called Pistol and Boo. It was the view of Ms Vargas that the dogs

Ms Vargas took photographs of the faeces and reported it to Kevin Murphy who was effectively her line manager. Mr Murphy in turn gave the photographs to Sean Bett who passed them on to the Claimant. The Claimant said in his evidence that he regarded this incident as the final straw of his relations with Ms Heard and he resolved to divorce her. The Claimant thought that either Ms Heard or one of her friends had been responsible. Mr Murphy said that Ms Heard had told him that leaving the faeces on the bed had been ‘just a harmless prank’.

In his cross-examination, Mr Depp accepted that his sense of humour was ‘niche’. It also had a lavatorial streak. On 11^th October 2013 he had sent a text to Stephen Deuters which said (see file 6/119/F697.14),

Mr Depp’s belief that Ms Heard or one of her friends was responsible for leaving the faeces on the bed is relevant because (a) it led him to conclude that his marriage to Ms Heard could not continue and (b) it was the cause of part of the argument which subsequently took place on 21^st May 2016. In my view, whether Ms Heard or one of her friends was in fact responsible is not important. It is remote from the central issue, namely whether Mr Depp assaulted Ms Heard. It is not even of significant relevance to whether Ms Heard assaulted Mr Depp. For what it is worth, I consider that it is unlikely that Ms Heard or one of her friends was responsible. Mr Depp had left that night for his property in Sweetzer. As long as he was away, it was Ms Heard who was likely to suffer from the faeces on the bed, not him. It was, therefore, a singularly ineffective means for Ms Heard or one of her friends to ‘get back’ at Mr Depp. Other evidence in the case showed that Boo (one of the two dogs) had an incomplete mastery of her bowels after she had accidentally consumed some marijuana. Ms Heard gave evidence that Boo had in the past defecated on the bed and that she herself had cleaned it up rather than leave that task to Ms Vargas. On 29^th October 2014, Ms Heard wrote in a text message to Kevin Murphy that (see file 7/3(b)/H27.2),

The Defendants’ allegations in relation to Incident 14 are set out in the RAD which I have quoted at paragraph 73 and the Claimant’s Reply in relation to Incident 14 has been quoted at paragraph 74 above.

Ms Heard says in her 1^st witness statement that she had not seen Mr Depp since her birthday dinner on 21^st April 2016. He wanted to come and collect some of his things. His mother had died on 20^th May 2016. He had been understandably upset about this. Ms Heard said that she had been in touch with him about this. She said that he arrived at about 7.15pm. She says she was alone in the apartment when he arrived drunk and

Ms Heard said in her statement that she became worried for her safety. She texted Ms Pennington and asked her to come over immediately. Ms Heard said that Mr Depp was alleging that iO Tillett Wright [‘iotw’] was responsible for the faeces. She phoned iotw and put him on speakerphone. iotw said that the allegation was ridiculous. Ms Heard said that Mr Depp became enraged, grabbed the phone, screamed insults at iotw, threw the phone to one side and went up to the upper level of the penthouse. She says he came back downstairs again, grabbed the phone again, and threw it at her (Ms Heard’s) face as hard as he could. She says the phone hit her on the right cheek and her eye.

Ms Heard said that Mr Depp then grabbed her hair.

Ms Heard said that she called out, ‘Call 911 [the emergency services number in the USA]’, hoping that iotw would still be able to hear her. He did and called 911 from New York (where he was). The New York police recorded receiving a call from IO Wright who had had reported ‘her friend called her from 849 South Broadway, Los Angeles CA 90014, that she was being assaulted by her husband’ and ‘her friend was hit with a phone and then she scream call 911’ (see file 5.1/191(a)/F1197.4). The report is timed at 23.23, which, since New York is 3 hours ahead of California, would have been 20.23 in California. The metadata of one of the photographs of Ms Heard’s right cheek (file 6/148(e)/F894.155 shows that it was taken on 21^st May 2016 at 20.23.

Ms Heard said in her statement that she was still screaming when Ms Pennington entered the penthouse. She said that she had managed to get free from Mr Depp’s grasp. She went over to the other side of the room. She says that Mr Depp ran at her, but Ms Pennington got in his way and put out her arms to separate her and Mr Depp. Ms Heard says that led Mr Depp to grab Ms Pennington’s arms. She says Mr Depp shouted and swore at Ms Pennington.

Ms Heard said that she collapsed on to the sofa. Mr Depp came over, but Ms Pennington again stood between the two of them. Ms Heard said that Mr Depp picked up a magnum bottle of wine. She says he was swigging out of it and smashing things as he went.

Ms Heard said that at this point Jerry Judge and Sean Bett entered the room. She says that she yelled at them to help her and said she would call the police. She says that Mr Judge led Mr Depp away although Mr Depp smashed things as he went out. She says wine was spilled in the hallway and he damaged one of the doors in the apartment. She says that Mr Depp went into another apartment where Ms Heard used to store her things. She says that she could hear him destroying things in there.

Ms Heard said that by now Josh Drew was in her apartment and he and Ms Pennington took her to their (neighbouring) apartment.

Ms Heard said that Mr Drew and Ms Pennington took photographs of the damage in the apartments and the injuries to her face.

The New York Police Department contacted the Los Angeles Police Department. At

Ms Heard said that the police did a walk through the apartment. There was wine on the floor and things that Mr Depp had smashed. One of the officers gave Ms Heard a business card and encouraged her to call her if Ms Heard changed her mind about making a complaint.

Ms Heard said that later that night two other police officers arrived. They had wanted to walk through the apartment, but Ms Heard said that by then they had cleaned up. CCTV of the lift shows these officers arriving at 22.28 and leaving at 22.34.

Ms Heard said that later that night she texted Melanie Inglessis. Ms Inglessis replied asking if she was OK. Ms Heard responded as set out below (see paragraph 501).

Ms Heard sent her parents one of the photographs of her cheek and said in a text (see file 7/33/H151),

At some point Ms Heard says that she also phoned her attorney, Samantha Spector.

The following day (so 22^nd May 2016) Ms Heard’s friend, Amanda de Cadenet, had a birthday party. Ms Heard says that her face was bruised but she did not want to let Ms de Cadenet down so she covered up the injuries on her face with make-up and wore sunglasses. As Ms de Cadenet had suggested in a text to her, she put arnica on her face to alleviate the bruising and swelling.

Ms Heard says that after this incident she decided to leave Mr Depp. She filed a petition for a divorce on 23^rd May 2016 and, on 27^th May, she applied for a temporary restraining order.

In her cross-examination, Ms Heard said:

Later, on 22^nd May 2016, Ms Heard and iotw had an exchange of messages which included the following (see file 7/38/H163),

As I have said, beginning at 10.24pm on 21^st May 2016, Ms Heard had an exchange of texts with Melanie Inglessis which said (see file 2/60/E95),

At some point that night Mr Depp sent a text to Ms Heard which said (see file 10/147(a)/O365),

Ms Heard had a vague recollection of seeing Cornelius Harrell on the front desk of the Eastern Columbia Building on 22^nd May 2016. She denied that she had no marks on her face. She did not recall seeing Trinity Esparza on 23^rd May. She had a vague recollection of seeing Isaac Barruch the same day. Ms Heard said that when she saw Hilda Vargas on 24^th May and Samantha McMillen she was wearing make-up. She said that whenever she left the house, she wore make-up because of the chance that she would be photographed.

On 24^th May 2016 Samantha Spector of Spector Law wrote on behalf of Ms Heard to Bloom Hergot Diemer Rosenthal LaVoilette on behalf of Mr Depp. Ms Spector referred to what had occurred on 21^st May and said that there were photographs of the property damage and the injuries to Ms Heard. Ms Spector said that there had been two other incidents in the past 6 months. Ms Spector said that Ms Heard wanted, if possible, to avoid the media spotlight which was why she had not yet sought a TRO. In her crossexamination, Ms Heard was asked about the subsequent expansion of the number of allegations of physical assault by Mr Depp. Ms Heard responded that her lawyer told her that this was a short application. If Mr Depp had hit her once, she would qualify for a restraining order. Ms Spector told her to give her the last couple of incidents. Ms Heard denied that the letter from Ms Spector was a form of blackmail.

Ms Pennington said she arrived on 2st May and comforted Ms Heard.

The guards came in. Ms Heard said, ‘If he hits me again, I will call the police.’ According to the Claimant and Mr Bett, at that stage Ms Heard and the Claimant were 20 feet apart.

Two police officers did attend that evening. They were officer Melissa Saenz (who had received training in domestic violence) and officer Tyler Hadden. They had no contemporary records of the attendance. Ms. Saenz could not say what time they arrived except it was the evening. An automated incident report (which I have quoted above) had been generated and they had each given evidence on deposition for the purpose of the divorce / restraining order proceedings on 18^th July 2016. On their arrival, they had been met by two people, but the police officers had not noted their names. They also saw Ms Heard who was inside the man’s apartment. She was crying and reluctant to speak to the police. That was not unusual in officer Saenz’s experience. They had a clear view of Ms Heard. Ms Heard did not appear to have any sign of injury to her face. The apartment where they were was well lit. There was reddening to her cheek, but officer Saenz attributed that to Ms Heard crying. The officer asked Ms Heard if she wanted to talk in private, but she did not. She declined to make a complaint, but officer Saenz left her visiting card in case Ms Heard changed her mind. There was written on the visiting card,

The second pair of police officers who came to the Eastern Columbia Building later that night have made no statements.

Ms Pennington said in her witness statement that she was aware that Mr Depp was intending to come over to meet Ms Heard on the evening of 21^st May 2016. Ms Pennington counselled against the meeting, but Ms Heard decided to go ahead and meet Mr Depp anyway. She said she would check in regularly with Ms Pennington. At 8.06 pm Ms Pennington got a text from Ms Heard asking her to come to PH3 right away. A copy of that text is at file 7/13/H81. In any event, Mr Depp did not dispute this part of her evidence. Ms Pennington said that from outside the apartment she could hear Mr Depp shouting loudly. There was no answer to her knock. When she let herself in to the apartment Mr Depp was in the kitchen, Ms Heard was seated on the sofa. They were about 12 feet apart. Ms Heard was yelling for help and said that Mr Depp had hit her with the phone. Mr Depp was swearing and saying that Ms Heard was a liar. Mr Depp swore at Ms Pennington. He moved towards Ms Heard. Ms Pennington stood between

Ms Pennington says that Mr Judge and Mr Bett came in. Mr Depp denied that he had hit Ms Heard and threatened to call the police himself. Ms Pennington says that Mr Depp was smashing things. He had a wine bottle with him and was sloshing wine everywhere. Ms Pennington says that Mr Judge and Mr Bett did nothing to restrain Mr Depp. Ms Heard was telling her at this stage that iO Tillett Wright had called the police. Ms Pennington then took Ms Heard with her back to her apartment. Mr Depp left with his security team. Ms Pennington looked through PH3 and PH5 at the damage that Mr Depp had done. She discovered broken belongings, her (Ms Pennington’s) beads thrown against the wall. Ms Heard’s belongings had been ransacked, framed photographs had been smashed and glass broken. There were puddles of spilled wine on the floor and splashes on the walls. Ms Pennington’s statement was broadly in line with the account which she had sent to Ms Heard by email on 22^nd May 2016.

Ms Pennington said that Ms Heard had an injury to her right eye. They took photographs of her injury and the property damage. There is a copy of a photograph of the right side of Ms Heard’s in the documents (file 6/148(e) / F894.155A) which the metadata shows, as I have said, was taken at 20.23 (and so before the police arrived).

Ms Pennington said that when the two police officers came the damage to the property was clearly visible. A little later a second pair of police officers came. They were told that the decision not to file a report remained the same. There has been no evidence at all from this second pair of police officers.

Further photographs were taken of Ms Heard’s face timed, according to the metadata as follows: 6/E/F894.157A, F894.159A, F894.161A, F894.163A (all 21.22), F894.165A and F894.167A (both 21.24), F894.169A, F894.171A, and F894.173A and F894.175A (all 21.25). Other photos were taken of Ms Heard’s face later that evening (around 11.30) and again on the following morning (22^nd May). Photographs were also taken on the evening of 21^st May of the damage to the apartments.

On the following day, as Ms Heard had requested, Ms Pennington wrote an account of what had taken place the night before and sent it to Ms Heard. She exhibited this account to her witness statement (see file 2.1/71(2)/E606.19).

In cross-examination, Ms Pennington denied that she had been hiding in one of the closets in PH3 waiting for Mr Depp to come over. She denied that she and Ms Heard spent the next few days taking photographs in support of Ms Heard’s plan for a separation. It was completely false to suggest that she, Ms Heard and Mr Drew had caused the damage to the apartment themselves after the police had left. It was also completely false that they had used make-up to fake the injury to Ms Heard’s face.

Joshua Drew in his witness statement said that his fiance, Ms Pennington, was apprehensive about Ms Heard meeting with Mr Depp and when Ms Heard texted at 8.06pm asking Ms Pennington to come, Ms Pennington had bolted across to PH3 from their apartment. Mr Drew could hear Mr Depp shouting and swearing at his security guards to let him in. He was cursing at Mr Drew. He came into PH5. Liz Marz was also in their apartment. She went upstairs. Mr Drew said that Ms Heard was in a state when

Mr Drew found Ms Heard and Ms Pennington in PH1. Ms Heard had had Mr Depp’s mobile phone which she said he had thrown at her. 5 minutes later Mr Judge called Mr Drew’s mobile. Mr Judge said that Mr Depp had left his mobile and Mr Drew returned it to Mr Judge downstairs in the Eastern Columbia Building. Mr Drew said that Mr Judge asked if Ms Heard was OK. Mr Drew said he responded along the lines of, ‘Are you fucking kidding me? He beat the shit out of her and you guys stood by and watched it.’ Mr Drew said that Mr Judge started to demur and then said something along the lines of, it was not his business. They were husband and wife. He barely touched her. Mr Drew was dismissive of these comments.

Mr Drew said that Ms Heard spoke with Ms Spector, her lawyer, and her publicist, Jodi Gottlieb.

Mr Drew said that he met with the police about 15 minutes later and showed them around the apartments. He showed them the broken glass, the large wine stain in the hallway, the damage to property, the broken picture frames, smashed glass and Rocky’s jewellery strewn across the floor of PH5. The female officer took Ms Heard aside to speak to her privately. While that was happening, Mr Drew spoke to the male officer and asked him what could be done. The male officer said that there was damage in the apartments and Ms Heard’s face was red, so there was enough to arrest Mr Depp if Ms Heard filed a report.

Mr Drew said that they cleaned up the broken glass so that the dogs would not be hurt. Mr Drew greeted the second set of officers. He took them for a walk through the apartment and they spoke with Ms Heard.

Mr Drew said he remembered seeing a red mark and a small bruise on Ms Heard’s cheekbone, red marks above her eyebrow and some swelling.

In cross-examination, Mr Drew confirmed that he had prepared an account of what had taken place on 21^st May and sent it to Ms Heard on 22^nd May 2016. His evidence was broadly in line with that account. He accepted that he had not seen Mr Depp strike Ms Heard. He confirmed that he had shown the police the damage to PH3 and PH5 and that Ms Heard had the injuries to which he referred in his statement.

IO Tillett Wright sent an email to Ms Heard on 22^nd May with the subject ‘What Happened’. The email read (see file 8/83/I40),

iO Tillett Wright said in his witness statement that he had been in New York on 21^st May 2016 when he had a call from Ms Heard. She said that Mr Depp wanted to talk to her about a theory which he had. This was about the faeces in the bed incident. Mr Tillett Wright denied that he had anything to do with faeces. He could hear banging noises in the background. He advised Ms Heard to leave the apartment. She said that it was OK, Mr Depp had gone upstairs. She said he was collecting his things in order to go to Sweetzer. Mr Tillett Wright said that he could hear Mr Depp’s voice, then Ms Heard yelped and she said that he had thrown the phone at her face. Mr Tillett Wright said that he was going to call the police. She said, ‘Do it.’ He said he called 911. He contacted Ms Pennington and asked her to go to the apartment right away. He also called a friend of his who was in Los Angeles and asked her to call 911 so that there would be a local call for police assistance.

A little while later, Mr Tillett Wright said that he heard from Ms Pennington that Mr Depp had left, the police had come and Ms Heard was OK.

On 8^th June 2016 Mr Tillett Wright wrote an article for ‘Refinery 29’ describing the incident.

In cross-examination Mr Tillett Wright agreed that by May 2016 Mr Depp was unhappy with him in part because he had posted material on-line concerning Mr Depp’s daughter, Lily Rose. He had called 911 in part because of what he could hear on the phone and in part because Ms Heard asked him to do so. Mr Tillett Wright agreed that he had written the Refinery 29 article at Ms Heard’s request. She had been concerned that she was being characterised as a gold-digger. Before the article had been published, he had exchanged messages with Ms Heard. He was seeking a transcript of the 911 call. He agreed that Ms Heard was a very close friend of his and he considered her to be part of his extended family. He would do a lot to support her, but only in a way which was truthful and honest.

Whitney Henriquez was not present on 21^st May 2016 but in her witness statement she said that she saw her sister on 22^nd May and ‘her eye was bruised and swollen, her lip was busted open and there was a chunk of her hair missing.’ Ms Heard relayed an account to her broadly in line with her statement.

The Defendants served a hearsay notice relying on several documents which emanated from Elizabeth Marz. One was a deposition which Ms Marz had given in the course of the Depp divorce proceedings. Ms Marz had been deposed on 15^th July 2016. Her evidence included the following:

Ms Marz had also prepared a draft declaration in the Virginia libel action (see file 3/103). This, too, was part of the Defendants’ hearsay notice. She said that she had stayed with Ms Pennington and Mr Drew in February 2016 for two weeks. She had been with Ms Pennington on 21^st May 2016 helping her prepare for her first jewellery show. She said that Ms Pennington received a text from Ms Heard asking Ms Pennington to come to her apartment. She and Mr Drew stayed in the apartment which was used as Ms Heard’s office (PH5). Ms Marz said that they heard screaming and yelling. The door to their apartment then burst open and Mr Depp was there with two of his guards. Ms Marz said that Mr Depp was visibly intoxicated. He was carrying a magnum sized bottle of wine which he was spilling all over the place. Mr Depp screamed, ‘Get your bitch out of here.’ Ms Marz said that she ran upstairs to the pool area and stayed there until she heard from Ms Pennington that Mr Depp had left. She said that Ms Heard’s face was visibly red and swollen. The declaration was only a draft but on 17^th July 2019 Ms Marz indicated by email that she was happy with it.

Mr Depp’s mother had been ill. She died, as I have said, on 20^th May 2016. He denied that he had dealt with this tragedy and the strain of his financial difficulties by resorting to excessive drinking or illegal drugs. Mr Depp agreed that he was angry on account of what he had been told about the faeces on the bed. He visited Ms Heard on the evening of 21^st May 2016 at the Eastern Columbia Building. He went with two members of his security team: Mr Judge and Mr Bett. He said he asked them to wait outside the front door of Penthouse 3 because he feared what might occur.

He said that he thought the visit had lasted about 30 minutes.

Mr Depp denied that he had assaulted Ms Heard or that any marks on her face had been caused by him throwing a phone at her.

Mr Depp agreed that Ms Heard had texted Ms Pennington, asking her friend to come over to the flat. He said that was part of Ms Heard’s hoax. He denied that Ms Pennington put herself between him and Ms Heard. He said that he and Ms Heard were 20 feet apart at that point. He denied that he pushed Ms Pennington’s hands out of the way. He denied that he was swinging a wine bottle and smashing things with it.

Mr Depp said that the series of texts sent by iO Tillett Wright to Ms Heard were part of the hoax concocted by Ms Heard.

Mr Depp agreed that he went to PH5 after he left PH3. He saw Mr Drew and a woman he did not know.

Mr Depp agreed that he was angry and upset when he left. He agreed that he had left his mobile phone behind and Mr Judge had collected it.

Mr Depp agreed that by 4^th June 2016 he was feeling quite bitter towards Ms Heard.

The next day after Incident 14, on 22nd May 2016, the Claimant sent a text to Ms Heard (see file 7/47(a)/H188.3) saying,

Jerry Judge, Mr Depp’s former head of security, has since died. Before his death he made a declaration for the purposes of the divorce proceedings in California (see file 3/83). He said that on 21^st May 2016 he and Sean Bett had gone with Mr Depp to the Eastern Columbia Building. He said that Mr Depp was sober. He said that after the three of them entered the apartment, he and Mr Bett waited in the hallway. He said that about 30 minutes later, they heard raised voices (chiefly Ms Heard’s) and entered the apartment. He said that Mr Depp and Ms Heard were standing about 10 feet apart. Ms Heard was screaming at Mr Depp. She was berserk. Mr Judge encouraged Mr Depp to leave. He said that he did not see Mr Depp break anything. He never saw Ms Pennington enter the apartment. He did not see any marks or injuries on Ms Heard’s face or body. He was about 10 feet away from her. He never heard Ms Heard accuse Mr Depp of throwing a phone at her or threaten to call the police.

The Claimant relies on the evidence of a number of people who say that they saw Ms Heard in the following days and did not see any sign of her injuries (in addition to those already mentioned). Thus,

I have quoted part of the statement of Sean Bett. He said that he and Jerry Judge took Mr Depp to the Eastern Columbia Building on 21^st May 2016. Mr Depp was sober and lucid. He expressed concern as to how Ms Heard might behave. Mr Bett said that he and Mr Judge waited in the hallway outside PH3. He says that they went back inside PH3 because they heard screaming. Ms Pennington did not come past them and she must therefore have been in PH3 when he and Mr Judge and Mr Depp arrived. When they did enter PH3, Mr Depp and Ms Heard were standing 20 feet apart. It was not the case that he and Mr Judge were waiting in PH5. He agreed that Mr Depp had left his mobile in PH3. Mr Drew brought the phone downstairs and handed it to Mr Judge. Mr Bett said he did not notice any smashed glass or broken bottles in the apartment.

In cross examination, Mr Bett agreed that what was known as the cubby hole or storage area was where the guards would remain while Mr Depp was in PH3. This was part of PH5. He denied that was where they waited on 21^st May while Mr Depp was in PH3. He thought that Mr Depp was in the apartment for a short time, and not as long as 1 ½

Mr Bett was certain that Ms Heard had no injury. He saw none of the property damage in the photos later taken by Ms Pennington and Mr Drew.

On 26^th May 2016, Mr Deuters sent a text to Paul Bettany which said (see file 6/119/F697.175),

In support of his reply that he did not assault Ms Heard on this date, the Claimant also relied on the declaration made by Laura Divinere in the Virginia libel proceedings. The declaration had been made on 28^th June 2019 (see file 3/86). It included (at paragraph 5) the following,

The Claimant served a hearsay notice stating that he intended to rely on this declaration. The Defendants served a counter-notice stating that they wished to cross-examine Ms Divinere in relation to the statement. I understand that a California court issued a subpoena requiring Ms Divinere to attend for cross examination. She did and she was cross examined by Ms Wass QC on behalf of the Defendants.

Ms Wass put to Ms Divinere an iMessage which Ms Divinere had received on 22^nd June 2019 (and so a few days before her declaration) from Adam Waldman (see file 4/120/F698). As I have said previously. Mr Waldman is one of the Claimant’s lawyers in the USA. Ms Wass also played a recording which Ms Heard had made (without the knowledge of Ms Divinere) of a conversation between herself and Ms Divinere. In cross examination Ms Divinere agreed with Ms Wass that she had felt pressured by Mr Waldman. She said that in the days following 21^st May 2016 incident, Ms Heard had been clearly upset. Her face had been red and puffy although she did not recall seeing any injury.

In re-examination Mr Sherborne wished to put to Ms Divinere a series of emails (see file 8/86(d)/I48.10 and following).

With Ms Divinere at the time of her evidence was Lee Sherman, who told me that he was a US attorney who represented Ms Divinere. I had ordered that any witness who gave evidence via video-link could be attended by a lawyer and this seemed to be how Mr Sherman came to be present. Mr Sherman objected to me seeing the email exchange on the grounds that it was a privileged communication between him and Ms Divinere. If it had found its way to the Claimant, that had been by accident, as should have been apparent.

I agree that Mr Sherman was entitled to raise the issue of privilege on his client’s behalf. After all, if the email exchange was privileged and I ought not to rely on it, that would be an objection which could properly be taken by a witness and the witness was entitled to the assistance of a lawyer to do so. On its face, part of the email exchange was a draft of a response which Mr Sherman provided to Ms Divinere and which she could, if she wished, provide to Mr Depp’s US lawyers.

Mr Sherborne submitted that any privilege in the exchange had been waived by Ms Divinere and it was therefore open to him to rely on the exchange. He referred me to an email in the chain which had been sent on 10^th March 2020 at 6.36am by Ms Divinere to Mr Sherman in the course of which she had said,

On the same day at 1.16pm Ms Divinere herself had forwarded the email exchange to Kevin Murphy who was until 2016 an employee of the Claimant.

I said to Mr Sherman and Mr Sherborne that I would reserve my decision on the privilege issue and deal with it as part of the judgment in the case as a whole.

Although Ms Divinere was in California when she testified before me, I am conducting this trial in England and I consider that English law must be applied to issues such as privilege.

As a matter of English law, I agree with the following propositions advanced by Mr Sherborne:

Accordingly, in my view, it was open to Mr Sherborne to rely on the exchange. In the exchange which was forwarded to Mr Murphy, there is a draft email from Mr Sherman to Alexander (I assume Alexander Rufus-Isaacs, one of the Defendants’ US lawyers) in which Mr Sherman says,

In her email letter which she wrote on 10^th March 2020 at 6.36am (and which she had asked to be forwarded to all counsel involved), Ms Divinere had said

However, while I agree with Mr Sherborne that he may rely on these statements, I have to decide what I make of Ms Divinere’s evidence taken as a whole. In my view her vacillation severely undermines the weight which I can give to her evidence.

I have said that the Defendants wished to adduce expert evidence. Their application notice was issued on Friday 17^th July 2020 (day 9 of the trial). The application notice said that the expert evidence which the Defendants wished to adduce was

The background to the application was explained by Jeffrey Smele in his 3^rd witness statement, also of 17^th July 2020. Mr Smele is a partner in the Defendants’ solicitors, Simons Muirhead and Burton. Mr Smele explains that the photographs were taken in May 2016 and purported to show injuries to Ms Heard’s face which she said had been caused by Mr Depp. Those photographs have always been in the trial bundles.

Mr Smele further explains that the May 2016 photographs had been disclosed to the Defendants by the Claimant on 29^th January 2020 by the Claimant’s previous solicitors, Brown Rudnick. The photographs had been accompanied by a spreadsheet which purported to give the date and time on which the photograph had been created. The spreadsheet said that the date of some of the photographs was 21^st May 2016; the date of others was 22^nd May 2016. In each case, however, the time was given as 00.00. Mr

On 17^th July 2020 Schillings replied,

Mr Smele also said that the Defendants had instructed an IT expert called Timothy LaTulippe of iDiscovery Solutions to advise them. Mr Smele exhibited a letter dated 17^th July 2020 from Mr LaTulippe which summarised his conclusions.

Mr Wolanski made the application that same afternoon (17^th July 2020). Mr Sherborne, who represented the Claimant on this matter, objected that he had not had time to consider the application or respond to it. Since the application notice had only been issued that morning, I agreed that it would not be fair to the Claimant to consider the application until the Claimant had had such an opportunity. That said, the matter was plainly urgent. I arranged for the application to be considered at 9.30am on Monday 20^th July 2020. Before we next sat my clerk received (a) a formal report from Mr LaTulippe (of the same date) (b) a note from Mr Wolanski; (c) a letter dated 19^th July 2020 from KLDiscovery, who had been instructed on behalf of the Claimant and (d) a skeleton argument from Mr Sherborne. It seemed to me that 30 minutes (which was the Defendants’ time estimate for the application) would be insufficient. I, therefore, said that I would consider the application on the basis of written submissions and I set a tight timetable for these. Mr Sherborne and Mr Wolanski both provided further submissions. On Wednesday 22^nd July 2020 I announced that I would refuse the application for reasons which I would give in the reserved judgment after the trial. This I am now doing.

Mr Wolanski drew attention to CPR r. 32.19 which says,

Mr Wolanski recognised that the rule does not address challenges to the authenticity of documents disclosed by the party who wishes to challenge their authenticity, but, he submitted, any such challenge ought still to be signalled promptly, to allow a proper investigation to take place including proper time for any application for expert evidence to be made. He submitted that principle had not been observed. Any difficulty created by the late notice of the Defendants’ application was therefore due to the Claimant’s delay in giving the Defendants notice that they were intending to allege that Ms Heard’s photos had been manipulated.

Mr Wolanski recognised that the application had expanded somewhat since Friday 17^th July in that it now included expert evidence as to two further matters:

Mr Sherborne resisted the application to adduce expert evidence. He argued:

Despite Mr Wolanski’s submissions in response (dated 21^st July 2020) I reached the clear conclusion that the Defendants’ application should be refused for the following reasons.

It follows that the expert evidence will play no part in this trial. The material which I have seen for the purpose of considering this application will be disregarded. That includes the proposed expert evidence in relation to incidents 4, 12 and 14.

Incident 14 is one where the conflict in evidence is particularly sharp. I have listed those who saw Ms Heard in the days following the incident and who said that her face had no sign of injury. On the other hand, there is evidence which I find compelling of witnesses who saw Ms Heard with injuries to her face and who took photographs of these. I prefer the evidence of the latter for several reasons:

I have said above that, after considering the detail of the evidence regarding the individual incidents, I would step back and consider to what conclusion I should come in view of the evidence as a whole.

I have found that the great majority of alleged assaults of Ms Heard by Mr Depp have been proved to the civil standard (bearing in mind what has been said about the evidence necessary to satisfy that standard when serious allegations are in issue). The exceptions are Incidents 6, 11 and the additional confidential allegation regarding Hicksville. I do not regard the Defendants’ inability to make good these allegations as of importance in determining whether they have established the substantial truth of the words that they published in the meanings which I have held those words to bear.

At several times in the course of this litigation, Mr Sherborne has suggested that there was unfairness to the Claimant because Mr Depp’s effective opponent was Ms Heard and yet she was not a party. She had no obligation to make disclosure and she provided information to the Defendants at different times and at her choice. I am not persuaded that these comments carry any weight. It is, of course, right that Ms Heard is not a party to the proceedings. Because she is not a party, she was not obliged to make disclosure.

A recurring theme in Mr Depp’s evidence was that Ms Heard had constructed a hoax and that she had done this as an ‘insurance policy’ – presumably in the event that the marriage broke down. Mr Sherborne commented in his closing submissions that Ms Heard had said that she recorded some of her conversations with Mr Depp to show him what he was capable of doing when the Monster prevailed and yet many of these were never played to or shown to Mr Depp. She was, according to this scenario, nothing more than a gold-digger. I have in the course of this judgment given reasons why I do not accept this characterisation of Ms Heard. Looking at the evidence as a whole, I come to the same conclusion. There is a multiplicity of emails, texts and messages and diary entries in the papers before me. I have quoted some. Some, but by no means all, are from Ms Heard. I recognise, of course, that previous statements by her are not independent evidence of the truth of the allegations, yet they are not, on the other hand, inadmissible or irrelevant for that reason. There are also as I have shown sometimes statements from third parties which do corroborate her. I had evidence as to what Ms Heard had received as a result of the divorce settlement. I have explained that there was no expert evidence to compare those figures with what she would otherwise have been entitled to under Californian divorce law. The principal element of that settlement was payment to her by Mr Depp of US $ 7 million. Ms Heard’s evidence that she had given that sum away to charity was not challenged on behalf of Mr Depp and the joint statement issued by Mr Depp and Ms Heard as part of the Deal Point Memorandum acknowledged that this was her intention (see file 9/139/L78) . I recognise that there were other elements to the divorce settlement as well, but her donation of the $ 7 million to charity is hardly the act one would expect of a gold-digger.

As Ms Wass said in her closing submissions, if Ms Heard had been constructing a hoax there are various measures which she might have taken, but which she did not (see paragraph 91 of the Defendants’ closing submissions). I agree that those points add further force to the conclusion I would anyway have reached, which is to reject the ‘hoax’ or ‘insurance policy’ thesis.

I also accept that Ms Heard’s allegations have had a negative effect on her career as an actor and activist. She said in her 4^th witness statement (made on 19^th March 2020) that her allegations had attracted considerable publicity and,

Something of Mr Depp’s feelings towards Ms Heard can be seen in a text that he sent to Christian Carino on 15^th August 2016 in which he said (see file 6/119/F697.194),

I have said above that I did not regard it as necessary or proportionate to resolve the disputed evidence as to what occurred in the Bahamas in December 2015. For the avoidance of doubt, my views would have been the same even if I had taken that evidence into account.

Despite the excessive length of this judgment I have not been able to address every one of the submissions made on the Claimant’s behalf, but I have taken all of them into account.

For all of these reasons I accept that the Defendants have shown that the words they published were substantially true in the meanings I have held them to bear.

It follows that this claim is dismissed.

The Claimant has not succeeded in his action for libel. Although he has proved the necessary elements of his cause of action in libel, the Defendants have shown that what they published in the meaning which I have held the words to bear was substantially true. I have reached these conclusions having examined in detail the 14 incidents on which the Defendants rely as well as the overarching considerations which the Claimant submitted I should take into account. In those circumstances, Parliament has said that a defendant has a complete defence. It has not been necessary to consider the fairness of the article or the defendants’ ‘malice’ because those are immaterial to the statutory defence of truth. The parties will have an opportunity to make submissions in writing as to the precise terms of the order which should follow my decision.

FOR a holier-than-thou Twitterati preacher, JK Rowling tries to present herself as a leading light for women in the entertainment industry.

But the author will need to use every trick in Harry Potter's magic book to handle the growing outrage in Hollywood over her decision to stand by the casting of Johnny Depp in the lead role in her precious Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them franchise.

Today I reveal a significant backlash from within the #MeToo and Time's Up movement because the Scot is hellbent on backing her famous pal – despite his clearly inexcusable behaviour towards ex-wife Amber Heard.

Rowling is proving herself to be the worst type of Hollywood Hypocrite here.

Her claim that she is "genuinely happy" to have Depp star as the central character, dark wizard Gellert Grindelwald, in her big-budget film sequel Fantastic Beasts: The Crime of Grindelwald provides him total rehabilitation in the eyes of the movie industry.

She is condoning behaviour that she would be loudly slamming on social media if it was a male executive making the same decision.

So let me be very clear for the benefit of an apparently unaware Ms Rowling: Overwhelming evidence was filed to show Johnny Depp engaged in domestic violence against his wife Amber Heard.

She was granted a restraining order after alleging Depp assaulted her following a drunken argument and submitted photographs to the court showing her bruised face.

Heard – backed up by numerous friends on the record – recounted a detailed history of domestic abuse incidents, some of which had led to her fearing for her life. According to the court documents, there were kicks, punches, shoves and "all-out assault".

While Depp's many high powered friends accused Heard of simply seeking a pay-out, she proved them wrong by committing to donate ALL of the £5 million she received to charity.

If Rowling is the supporter of women's rights she claims, has she been blinded by a personal friendship with Depp?

After all, she coveted him enough to have spent £22m buying his old yacht, which he had ironically re-named for Heard.

Rowling is a powerful figure, who likes to slaughter anyone who dares publicly question her morals or decisions.

But today two brave members of Me Too/Time's Up – both victims of Harvey Weinstein – go public to question her decision.

In a message to Rowling, actress Caitlin Dulany says: "We would like to see things change in this industry and not see people who have allegedly victimised women.

"It is not much of a change if you are seeing people rewarded with roles.

"Amber has been through a difficult time with him. But it seems like what happened hasn't really affected Johnny.

"We would like to see things change in this industry and this is an example of that not happening.

"I would hope for different role models than someone who has that kind of history. It is important when you are casting."

Actress Katherine Kendall adds: "I don't stand behind hitting people or abusing people. It seems that Amber got hurt.

"As someone who has been the victim of sexual abuse and a supporter of Me Too and telling my story to help others, I cannot advocate violence.

"I think it is a confusing message to put people in roles that are aimed at children and young people if there is a suggestion they have done something of that nature."

So today I publish five questions Rowling MUST answer:

Do you take domestic violence accusations as seriously as sexual harassment given your support of the Me Too movement?

If so, do you believe Amber Heard's detailed 2016 court filing detailing abuse allegations by Johnny Depp, which included pictures showing her injuries and on the record accounts by other witnesses?

Why did Depp agree to pay £5 million as a settlement, including a confidentiality agreement, if there was no truth to the allegations?

You admitted last year there were "legitimate questions" about Depp's casting. What were these and how did you overcome them?

Heard appeared to suggest on Instagram that you had taken her divorce statement "out of context" in order to defend Depp's casting. Have you spoken to her directly?

Warner Bros releases the Depp-fronted film in November.

While Rowling has an inability to ever admit she's made a mistake, it's not too late for a last-minute re-cast. It would cost millions, but Rowling has the money.

I believe it is the only decision that would show she's a woman of true character and principle, even when her famous friends are involved.