Reading time: three minutes

Following the trial of Stephen Tompkinson which concluded this week, we’ve seen yet another celebrity actor take the stand in their own defence. This brings forth the question yet again, just how much of an impact can the talents of these individuals have over a court of law? Firstly, it’s important to make clear that this discussion isn’t about whether these individuals are truly guilty or not, we’ll leave that to the courts. This discussion simply looks at the argument that actors being permitted to take the stand in their own defence gives them an advantage through their storytelling and acting skills.

The prosecution in the trial of actor Tompkinson argued that he was an “expert in playing a part”, while his “obvious talent makes him convincing in putting across a story”. This was a key part of the closing speech from the prosecutor Michael Brunch, who suggested that the testimony of an actor may be less reliable than a regular testimony. Tompkinson was eventually found not guilty after pleading self-defence to the charge of grievous bodily harm, which occurred just under two years ago. 

Another obvious example of actors taking the stand is the defamation case between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, which took place in America last year. The two renowned actors spent a lot of time on the stand giving their individual testimonies. They both told starkly different accounts of events, with extremely convincing emotion and storytelling on display throughout. This caused great hardship for the jury, as well as the millions around the world who scrutinised the case as it took place. Heard eventually settled with Depp, agreeing to pay $1 million to the renowned actor. 

The issue with actor testimonies is that taking away their right to testify surely takes away their right to a fair trial. When faced with someone who can make anything, true or not, seem believable and realistic, the question is does allowing someone of this ilk to take the stand allow the trial to be fairer than the consequences of taking away that right to testify?

One potential approach to tackling this question could be to warn the jury that the testimony of someone who acts as a living may be falsely convincing. Perhaps akin to a bad character direction, the judge should be able to warn the jury that the individual taking the stand has skills of public speaking and acting above that of a usual witness or defendant. A direction such as this would have been key in the defamation between Depp and Heard, where so much emphasis was placed on the testimonies of the two actors. This would’ve helped the jury and public focus more on the material facts of the case, rather than which actor was the most convincing.

Such a change is unlikely to take place any time soon, as impacting upon the reliability of someone who’d still be considered as being of ‘good character’ would likely be a contentious matter.