Steve Coogan’s film Richard III had a defamatory meaning – judge

A judge has ruled that the portrayal of a university professor in a Steve Coogan film about the discovery of Richard III’s remains was defamatory.

Richard Taylor is suing the comedian, who wrote the film, as well as his production company Baby Cow and Pathe Production for defamation.

The film tells the story of historian Philippa Langley and her quest to find the King’s skeleton under a car park in Leicester in 2012.

Taylor launched legal action in the High Court, claiming the film made him appear “misogynistic” and “like a weasel”.

The Lost King focused on historian Philippa Langley’s search, which involved archaeologists from the University of Leicester.

Mr Taylor was deputy registrar of the University of Leicester at the time and was later played in the film by actor Lee Ingleby.

At a preliminary hearing in February, Judge Jaron Lewis was asked to decide some early issues in the case, including the “natural and ordinary” meaning of Mr Taylor’s interpretation and 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.

In another ruling on Friday, Judge Lewis ruled that the film portrayed Mr Taylor as “knowingly misrepresenting the facts to the media and the public” about the discovery and as being “satisfied, dismissive and favouritism”, which could be defamatory.

He said: “The character Mr Taylor was portrayed throughout the film in a negative light. At no point was it presented 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 strong comment about the plaintiff and how he conducted himself when fulfilling a senior professional role for a university.

“The poor manner in which he was described as behaving towards Ms 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, William Bennett KC, representing Mr Taylor, said the film showed him as a “sly, weasel-like person” and a “suitable bean counter” who “mocked” his disability to Richard III.

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

Andrew Caldecott KC, representing Mr Coogan and the two companies, said the film claimed it was “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 performance 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.