Steve Coogan’s ‘weasel-like’ portrayal of Leicester academic in The Lost King was defamatory, judge says

A University of Leicester academic has won the right to sue Alan Partridge actor Steve Coogan over the way he was portrayed in a semi-fictional film. The Lost King, by Coogan’s production company Baby Cow, featured Richard Taylor as the antagonist, trying to prevent Philippa Langley from getting credit for her role in the discovery of Richard III’s skeleton.

The lost remains of the Plantagenet king were found in a car park in Leicester city center in 2012, more than 500 years after his death. At a preliminary hearing in February, Judge Jaron Lewis was asked to decide whether it was a statement of fact or opinion.

Lawyers for Mr Taylor, a former deputy registrar of the University of Leicester, said the film – written and produced by Mr Coogan – portrayed him as “disdainful, paternalistic and misogynistic” towards Ms Langley.

READ MORE: Steve Coogan is being sued for libel over Richard III film

In a preliminary ruling today (Friday June 16), Mr Justice Lewis ruled that the film portrayed Mr Taylor as “knowingly misrepresenting the facts to the media and the public” about the discovery and as “satisfied, dismissive and unduly favourable’, which could be defamatory.

He said: “The character Mr Taylor was portrayed throughout the film in a negative light. At no point was it shown in a way that could be described as positive or even neutral.

“While an individual scene may not cross the threshold of seriousness, taken together, the film makes a powerful comment about the plaintiff and how he behaved when he took on a professional leadership role for a university.

“The poor manner in which he was described as behaving towards Mrs Langley was contrary to the common shared values ​​of our society and would have been recognized as such by the reasonable hypothetical viewer.”

The decision means the case can now go to trial, for which no date has been set.

At the earlier hearing in London, William Bennett KC, representing Mr Taylor, said the film showed him as a “sly, weasel-like person” and a “proper bean counter” who “makes fun of” of disability of Richard III.

Mr Bennett said: “It’s a simple, plot-driven film where everything that is said and done counts.”

Andrew Caldecott KC, representing Mr Coogan and his companies, said the film claims it is “based on a true story”, adding: “It is not a literal representation of the exact words … and would be understood as a presentation of Mrs Langley’s perception’.

He continued that while the film was “clearly strongly critical” of Mr Taylor and the university for “marginalizing” Ms Langley during the discovery process, “no reasonable viewer” would conclude that Mr Taylor’s motive was “sexism or misogyny”.

While Mr Justice Lewis ruled that certain aspects of Mr Taylor’s portrayal could be defamatory, he said he did not believe a viewer of the film “would have come away from the film thinking it was saying the plaintiff was a misogynist or sexist”.

He also said that someone watching the film would not believe that Mr Taylor “equates the physical deformity of Richard III with the wickedness or moral failings” of the portrayal.

If Mr Taylor wins the case, he will be awarded damages for the damage to his reputation.