Thread by Mr Nick Wallis on Twitter.
Grounds of Appeal and Skeleton argument full docs: https://www.nickwallis.com/courtofappeal

Mr Depp’s representatives have filed two documents to the Court of Appeal at the Royal Courts of Justice, London, England, seeking leave to appeal Mr Justice Nicol’s High Court ruling.

He is seeking permission to appeal the judgment. If he is successful he says will ask the court of appeal to “set aside the Judgment and order a re-trial.”

In this case the Court of Appeal should do so because the trial Judge failed to examine the evidence and the arguments with the care that the parties were entitled to expect and which a proper resolution of the issues demanded.

The judgment is plainly wrong and the consequential decision in favour of the Respondents is manifestly unsafe, because:
(a) the trial Judge’s findings were not conclusions based on or supported by a carefully weighed and reasoned analysis of the evidence, or the credibility of the various witnesses, but rather bare assertions without any real explanation for how he reached these serious findings in the face of conflicting accounts of events, and
(b) he uncritically accepted at the outset that the complainant must have been correct in her allegations and, having done so, discounted or ignored any evidence on the contrary, despite the fact that it undermined her credibility and the account she had given.

Despite its length, the judgment lacks both analysis and reasoning for the trial Judge’s decisions to exclude matters which were damaging to or inconsistent with the evidence of the witness on whose veracity or reliability the Respondents’ entire case depended (namely Ms Amber Heard), or as to why he made the findings of fact he did as to what he said happened.

In view of the unreasoned, inconsistent and unsustainable findings of fact in this judgment, the Appellant did not receive a fair trial in protection of his rights in accordance with both Article 6 and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Where allegations of serious criminal conduct are determined by a single judge, the importance of an effective appeal process is far greater.
Further, these findings have been reached in a judgment that has been very widely publicised, which is not only devastating to the Appellant but also has wider repercussions for alleged victims or those who are wrongly accused of domestic violence.

This is therefore a paradigm example of a case where there are additionally compelling grounds for the judgment to be reviewed on appeal in any event, but particularly given the weight of reasons which render the findings that the trial Judge reached plainly wrong or unsafe.