Justice or Bias? Johnny Depp Exits ‘Fantastic Beasts’

by Conan Simmons – November 12, 2020 – 9:09 pm

Justice Andrew Nicol, who judged in favor of News Group Newspapers over Johnny Depp’s libel case, Depp v News Group Newspapers and anor [2020] EWHC 2911 (QB), may have been unduly influenced by the fact his son, Robert Palmer, is employed by talkRADIO where Dan Wootton, who wrote the alleged libel article, hosts the Drivetime show.

Robert Palmer has what he terms on Twitter “my regular paper review slot” on talkRADIO. Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp owns both News Group Newspapers, parent company of The Sun which published the alleged libel article, and talkRADIO.

Dan Wootton is currently the executive editor of The Sun and host of talkRADIO’s Drivetime show. Wootton wrote the article “Gone Potty: How Can J.K. Rowling be ‘Genuinely Happy’ Casting Wife Beater Johnny Depp in the New Fantastic Beasts Film?”, published in The Sun in April 2018.

Johnny Depp sued the Rupert Murdoch owned News Group Newspapers for libel over the article. He lost the case but plans to appeal. Soon after the ruling Warner Bros. asked Johnny Depp to resign from the currently filming ‘Fantastic Beasts’ sequel.

One of the grounds for Depp’s appeal could come from actual or apparent bias, which according to laws in the U.K. can result in a judge’s recusal. Actual bias can stem from a judge having interest in the promotion of a cause, not exclusive to ownership or monetary gain. The question of actual bias potentially rests on the judge’s interest in his son’s well-being with talkRADIO.

The potential for actual bias here is stronger than in the United Cabbies Group (UCG) v Westminster Magistrate’s Court filed last year. In UCG v Westminster Magistrate’s the appeal was made in part due to perceived actual or apparent bias by reason of the judge’s husband’s financial relationship with Uber. The judge recused herself but ultimately the appeal failed.

Apparent bias is more objective. The House of Lords, in Magill v Porter [2001] UKHL 67, arrived at testing apparent bias with ‘what the fair-minded and informed observer would have thought, and whether his conclusion would have been that there was real possibility of bias.’

As Depp prepares his appeal a cloud of doubt hangs over the ruling that Justice Andrew Nicol handed down.