Hollywood star Johnny Depp on Friday confirmed he will appeal against the UK court ruling that revealed he was violent towards his ex-wife Amber Heard. The star made the revelation in a statement on Instagram, in which he also announced his exit from the Fantastic Beasts franchise. “I’d like to thank everybody who has gifted me with their support and loyalty. I have been humbled and moved by your messages of love and concern, particularly over the last few days,” said Depp, further disclosing his plans to appeal the libel case. “Finally, I wish to say this. The surreal judgement of the court in the UK will not change my fight to tell the truth and I confirm that I plan to appeal,” he added.
Depp continued, “My resolve remains strong and I intend to prove that the allegations against me are false. My life and career will not be defined by this moment in time. Thank you for reading. Sincerely, Johnny Depp.” Earlier, Depp’s legal counsel referred to the verdict as “perverse” and “bewildering”. His lawyers added that it would be “ridiculous” not to appeal.
Johnny Depp Asked To Quit Fantastic Beasts Franchise Following Libel Case Verdict
Jenny Afia, of Schillings law firm, said, “This decision is as perverse as it is bewildering. Most troubling is the judge’s reliance on the testimony of Amber Heard, and corresponding disregard of the mountain of counter-evidence from police officers, medical practitioners, her own former assistant, other unchallenged witnesses and an array of documentary evidence which completely undermined the allegations, point by point. All of this was overlooked. The judgment is so flawed that it would be ridiculous for Mr Depp not to appeal this decision.” Afia then brought to light a separate hearing scheduled to be held in the US in 2021 in which Depp has brought a $50m (£39m) defamation case against Heard over an opinion piece she wrote in The Washington Post in December 2018. “In the meantime, we hope that in contrast to this case, the ongoing libel proceedings in America are equitable, with both parties providing full disclosure rather than one side strategically cherry picking what evidence can and cannot be relied upon,” she said.
