Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
donald trump‘S trial against BBC According to a prominent media lawyer, it has a “fundamental flaw” and would have to overcome several legal hurdles to succeed in the US.
us President has filed a $10 billion defamation claim against the broadcaster over an edit of panorama The documentary aired a week before the 2024 US election, which his lawyers argue was “false and defamatory”.
He also claimed that “the BBC deliberately and maliciously tried to grossly mislead its audiences around the world”. The BBC said in a statement it will defend the case,
The program is accused of misleading viewers by editing a speech given by Trump on January 6, 2021.
The broadcaster shared two separate clips from Trump’s speech that day, giving the impression that he had instructed the crowd: “We’re walking to the Capitol… and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.”
Controversy, first surfaced Wire Last month, a complete crisis broke out in the corporation and BBC Director General Tim Davie resigns and Deborah Terness, CEO of BBC News.
Documents filed late Monday in a federal court in Miami by Trump’s lawyers sought $5 billion (3.7 billion pounds) in damages for defamation, as well as a similar amount for claims of violating trade practices, a total of $10 billion, the BBC said.
A BBC spokesperson said: “As we have previously made clear, we will defend this matter. We are not going to comment further on ongoing legal proceedings.”
international media lawyer Mark Stephens from London firm Howard Kennedy He believes there are some aspects of the claim that the President will struggle to prove.
‘Jurisdiction is the magic element here’
President Trump cannot sue the BBC in a British court because he missed the deadline to do so – the limit on defamation claims in Britain is one year.
A case has been registered in Florida Court, but Mr. Stephens believes this creates a “fundamental flaw” of the President’s case – jurisdiction.
he told Independent: “Their lawyers missed the UK deadline by two weeks. So they have to publish this elsewhere – which is why they spend the first few pages of the trial talking about jurisdiction.
“What they say is that American courts have jurisdiction when people from those jurisdictions live. President Trump FloridaSo he can bring a case.
“The problem you have is that they didn’t look at whether the defamation occurred in Florida and they haven’t proven it.”
The Florida court does not have jurisdiction to hear claims related to material that was not broadcast in the U.S. President Trump must prove that people in Florida could have seen it. panorama case.
Mr Stephens explained: “Jurisdiction is the magic element here. President Trump and his lawyers have to prove defamation panorama Firstly that the program was published in the United States, ideally in Florida, secondly that someone watched it and thirdly that people who watched it thought badly of them as a result of watching the programme.
“They try to address it. They say people on Britbox (streaming platform) in Florida might be able to watch it and anyone using a VPN in Florida – because it was geo-blocked from the USA – might be able to watch it.”
He added: “What is notable in its absence in all 87 pages of the lawsuit is any evidence that it was published to anyone and that anyone who saw it thought less of Donald Trump.
“That’s the burden that the claimant — Donald Trump — has on him and his lawyers have not released him.”
‘Absence of actual malice’
US defamation law differs from UK law in that the burden is on the claimant rather than the defendant. The claimant must prove that the claim is false, defamatory and has been published or broadcast.
Mr. Stephens believes this creates more obstacles for the President.
He said: “Second [flaw] Basically there is an absence of real malice. To demonstrate this, President Trump’s lawyers must show that the BBC acted while knowing the truth and knowingly turned a blind eye to it and knowingly lied.
“I think that is not a conceivable element. As far as I can see, he has not discharged that burden in the complaint.
“The President is a public figure and he has to show (proof) of actual malice – that is, that the BBC knew it was wrong and did not care.
“Practically speaking, you are looking for demonstrable, very specific evidence of material harm and evidence that the BBC knew it was wrong or did not care that it was wrong.
“None of these appear in the claim, and they are essential elements for her lawyers to prove a successful claim.”
The BBC is committed to fighting this case. As it has been filed, the next step will be to send it to the BBC, but Mr Stephens believes the corporation could remove parts of it, which would help it save legal costs.
He said: “If it’s dismissed before trial, I think [litigation] The cost to the BBC would be approximately $200,000.
“If it’s tested, it will cost about $1 million, maybe a little more. I’ve seen estimates around the millions, but that’s nonsense – the evidence is pretty straightforward.”