Richard III film had defamatory meaning, judge rules

The portrayal of a university academic in a Steve Coogan film about the discovery of Richard III's remains did have a defamatory meaning, a judge has ruled.

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

The film tells the story of historian Philippa Langley and her search to find the king's skeleton under a Leicester car park in 2012.

Mr Taylor launched High Court legal action claiming the film had made him appear "misogynistic" and "weasel-like".

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

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

At a preliminary court hearing in February, Judge Jaron Lewis was asked to decide several early issues in the case, including the "natural and ordinary" meaning of Mr Taylor's portrayal and whether it was a statement of fact or opinion.

Lawyers for Mr Taylor, formerly deputy registrar of the University of Leicester, said the film - of which Mr Coogan was a writer and a producer - presented him as being "dismissive, patronising and misogynistic" towards Ms Langley.

In a further judgment on Friday, Judge Lewis ruled the film portrayed Mr Taylor as having "knowingly misrepresented facts to the media and the public" about the discovery, and as being "smug, unduly dismissive and patronising", which could be defamatory.

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

"Whilst an individual scene may not in itself cross the threshold of seriousness, taken together the film makes a powerful comment about the claimant and the way he conducted himself when undertaking a senior professional role for a university.

"The poor way in which he was depicted as behaving towards Ms Langley was contrary to common shared values of our society and would have been recognised as such by the hypothetical reasonable viewer."

The ruling means the case can now proceed to trial, for which a date has not been set.

At the previous hearing, William Bennett KC, representing Mr Taylor, said the film showed him as a "devious, weasel-like person" and a "suited bean-counter", who was "mocking" Richard III's disability.

"It's a straightforward, plot-driven film where everything that is said and done matters," Mr Bennett said.

Andrew Caldecott KC, representing Mr Coogan and the two companies, said the film stated it was "based on a true story", adding: "It is not a literal portrayal of exact words and would be understood as putting forward Ms Langley's perception."

He continued that while the film was "clearly strongly critical" of Mr Taylor and the university for "sidelining" Ms Langley during the discovery process, "no reasonable viewer" would conclude that Mr Taylor's motive was "sexism or misogynism".

While Judge Lewis ruled that aspects of Mr Taylor's portrayal could be defamatory, he said he did not think a viewer of the film "would have come away from the film thinking that it was saying that the claimant was a misogynist or sexist".

He also said someone watching the film would not think Mr Taylor was "equating Richard III's physical deformity with wickedness or moral failings" from the portrayal.

Follow BBC Leicester on Facebook, on X, or on Instagram. Send your story ideas to [email protected] or via WhatsApp on 0808 100 2210.