Steve Coogan Settles Libel Claim for ‘The Lost King’ Film

A significant legal development has unfolded in the world of filmmaking, with actor and screenwriter Steve Coogan, alongside his production company Baby Cow and Pathé Productions, reaching a settlement in a high-profile libel claim. The case centered on their 2022 film, ‘The Lost King,’ which dramatized the discovery of King Richard III’s remains. The university employee who brought the claim, Richard Taylor, is set to receive “substantial damages” as part of the resolution, highlighting the careful balance between creative license and factual representation in biographical narratives.

The Genesis of ‘The Lost King’ and the Controversy

‘The Lost King’ tells the compelling true story of Philippa Langley, an amateur historian whose relentless efforts led to the groundbreaking discovery of King Richard III’s long-lost remains beneath a Leicester car park in 2012. The film, co-written by Steve Coogan and starring him alongside Sally Hawkins as Langley, garnered attention for its portrayal of the challenges Langley faced, including perceived skepticism and obstruction from academic institutions.

However, the film’s depiction of certain individuals involved in the real-life events sparked controversy. Central to the dispute was the character based on Richard Taylor, who served as the deputy registrar at the University of Leicester during the time of the discovery. In the film, Taylor’s character, played by Lee Ingleby, was presented in a manner that became the focal point of the subsequent legal challenge.

The Libel Claim: Richard Taylor’s Case

Richard Taylor initiated a libel lawsuit against Coogan, Baby Cow, and Pathé Productions, alleging that his portrayal in ‘The Lost King’ was unfairly negative and defamatory. Taylor’s legal team contended that the film depicted him as an “arrogant villain,” someone who was “dismissive, patronizing and misogynistic” towards Philippa Langley.

Specifically, Taylor argued that the cinematic representation inaccurately suggested he had “knowingly misrepresented facts to the media and the public” regarding the discovery of Richard III’s remains. He further claimed the film painted him as “smug, unduly dismissive and patronizing” in his interactions.

The Court’s Stance and the Path to Settlement

The case progressed through the legal system, with a significant development occurring in June when Judge Jaron Lewis ruled on the meanings conveyed by the film. The judge concluded that certain aspects of Taylor’s portrayal could indeed be understood by an ordinary viewer as defamatory, particularly the suggestions of misrepresenting facts and acting in a smug, dismissive, and patronizing manner.

This ruling meant that Taylor’s claim had a reasonable prospect of proceeding to a full trial. However, rather than continuing with litigation, all parties involved opted for a settlement, leading to the recent announcement.

Terms of the Settlement: Substantial Damages and Film Changes

The settlement confirms that Richard Taylor has been successful in his claim and will receive “substantial damages.” While the exact figure has not been publicly disclosed, the term “substantial” indicates a significant financial award.

Beyond the monetary compensation, the settlement also dictates that the film itself will undergo changes, with the defamatory comments and portrayals of Taylor not being repeated.

Reactions from Parties Involved

Following the settlement, Richard Taylor expressed his satisfaction with the outcome. He told the BBC, “I’m really pleased that we have finally established that the film is a defamatory portrayal of me — baseless in its depiction of me and a distortion of the search for Richard III.” He also reiterated his appreciation for the collaborative effort between academics and amateurs in the actual discovery of the king’s remains.

In a joint statement to the BBC, Steve Coogan, Baby Cow, and Pathé acknowledged their responsibility as distributors and producers in bringing real-life stories to audiences. They stated, “We remain incredibly proud of this film and are pleased this matter has now been settled.” This statement reflects a commitment to authenticity while also acknowledging the resolution of the legal dispute.

Pathé had previously defended ‘The Lost King,’ emphasizing in March 2024 that it was a “feature film, not a documentary” and therefore “not a literal portrayal of exact words.” The company highlighted its history of financing and distributing dramatic motion pictures based on real events, such as ‘The Queen’ and ‘Philomena,’ and affirmed its decision to finance ‘The Lost King’ to give Philippa Langley’s story a voice.

Implications for Biographical Filmmaking

The settlement in the ‘The Lost King’ libel case serves as a pertinent reminder of the complexities inherent in creating films based on real people and events. While filmmakers often take creative liberties to craft compelling narratives, this case underscores the legal boundaries, particularly concerning defamation, that exist when depicting living individuals. It reinforces the importance of meticulous research, sensitive portrayal, and potential consultation with real-life subjects to mitigate legal risks while still achieving artistic vision.

The outcome of this claim will likely be discussed within the film industry, contributing to ongoing conversations about accuracy, artistic interpretation, and the ethical responsibilities of those who bring true stories to the screen. It highlights that even with the understanding that a feature film is not a documentary, there are still legal expectations regarding the truthfulness of character portrayals that can significantly impact individuals’ reputations.