No, watch the full final arguments from both sides as they explain it all. They have 7 questions to answer all related to the 2018 op-ed and it being 100% valid as well as its effects causing defamation and being written with malice, which AH quite literally admitted to on the stand yesterday, saying she “wrote it about him to take away his power”.
At 1hr 11mins here in this video is the crux of it with the full instructions:
Just because he once head-butted her by when he was barricading himself in a bathroom as she was trying to kick the door in, and once grabbed her by the arms to remove her from blocking him to leave (all admitted), does not matter as it’s about how truthful the op-ed was in its entirety. For her to win damages she has to prove that a bunch of tweets from his lawyer being a bit unprofessional, but possibly truthful, were incorrect and were directly responsible for her losing work.
Also the UK term in court of something being “substantially true” is a legal definition of weighing up a slight probability, which in the press makes the verdict sound like he was found “guilty” of some kind of offence. Her PR has actually been sending out a bunch of factual inaccuracies as if it was some kind of criminal trial against him. Part of the UK verdict was also based on the probability of her making up stories of abuse for her gain, when she testified that she donated all of her divorce settlement to charity. That has since been proven to be false as she donated nothing.
Like I said at the start, I’ve mostly been interested in this case because of the media reaction and the absolute blatant bias on display when what they’re reporting on is available to see for yourself. With 8 hours of court time every day, anyone with any agenda can twist and turn what was said in whichever way they wish, by taking a couple of quotes to “sum up” the events to portray one side in the context of their choosing. They pick and choose what to omit and some of these mad mainstream editorials about having to “believe all women or it will be a slap in the face to victims” are completely illogical. I really think UK courts should have cameras allowed in.