Steve Coogan's 'weasel-like' portrayal of Leicester academic in The Lost King was defamatory, judge rules

A University of Leicester academic has won his right to have a trial against Alan Partridge actor Steve Coogan for the way he was portrayed in a semi-fictional film. The Lost King, by Coogan's production company, Baby Cow, showed Richard Taylor as the antagonist, trying to block Philippa Langley from getting credit for her part in the discovery of Richard III's skeleton.

The lost remains of the Plantagenet king were found in a Leicester city centre car park 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, 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.

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

In a preliminary judgement today (Friday, June 16), 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 in London, 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.

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

Andrew Caldecott KC, representing Mr Coogan and his companies, said the film states 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.

If Mr Taylor wins the trial he will be awarded compensation for the damage to his reputation.