Charlotte Lewis loses trial against Roman Polanski

by times news cr

british actress Roman Polanski over alleged rape of minor in 1973 settled, both sides say”>Charlotte Lewis, lost yesterday the appeal trial⁣ for defamation in France against⁢ the director roman Polanskifor having treated‌ her as ‌a liar, ​ after ⁣she accused ⁢him of rape.

He paris court of appeal “confirmed‌ the sentence handed down” in the ‌first instance, which acquitted the ⁢91-year-old‌ filmmaker in May, whom several ‍women also accuse of sexual assaults y rape.

Charlotte Lewis appealed the court’s ruling, but as ‍the prosecutor’s‍ office did not ⁢appeal, the⁢ ruling became final.

You may be interested: Actress dies after poisoning by frog‍ poison; I⁢ was on a spiritual retreat

The court ‌ultimately demonstrated that there was no ‌civil wrong on‌ the part of Polanski.

“It is a decision that is very debatable because it gives Roman Polanski ⁣ a⁢ kind ⁤of permission to kill through the media,” commented the‍ lawyer of Lewis, Benjamin Chouai.

You may be interested: AI is revolutionizing the cine:⁤ Santiago García Galván

“It can defame, discredit, discredit.It will probably continue to happen against ⁤ Charlotte Lewis ⁢but also against ‌other women,” he​ added and indicated that ‍he was‍ going to⁣ take stock of the situation with his client, absent when the‍ sentence was handed down, with a view to a possible ⁤appeal.

In this trial, the court was not required to determine whether Roman Polanski violated the British actress but onyl ​whether or not the ‍filmmaker ‍had abused​ her freedom of expression ⁤in an interview.

What‌ are ‌the potential legal ramifications for powerful figures who make defamatory statements against sexual assault accusers?

Interview: The‌ Implications of the Charlotte‍ Lewis vs. Roman Polanski Case with‌ Legal Expert Dr.⁢ Jane Hart

Editor of Time.news: Welcome, Dr. Hart, and thank you for joining us today. We ⁤are here to​ discuss the recent appeal ruling in the⁢ defamation case involving British actress Charlotte Lewis ⁤and filmmaker ⁤Roman‌ Polanski. What can ‌you share about⁤ the implications of this decision?

Dr. Jane Hart: Thank you for having me. The ⁢court’s ruling has significant⁤ implications, not only for Charlotte Lewis but also​ for other individuals who come forward with accusations of sexual assault. ‌The​ Paris court’s confirmation of the initial ruling​ essentially endorses Polanski’s freedom of expression over the potential harm his⁢ statements may cause to Lewis’s character.

editor: That reinforces a concerning precedent. Can ‌you explain what the court⁢ decided‍ in this case?

Dr. Hart: Certainly. The court did not determine whether Polanski was guilty of the accusations made by⁤ Lewis but focused solely on​ whether he ⁣had ⁢abused ⁣his freedom of expression when he labeled her a liar in an interview. the court ultimately found ⁢no civil wrong on his⁣ part, which is troubling because it suggests ⁤that‍ powerful figures can publicly cast doubt​ on​ accusations without facing legal repercussions.

Editor: It sounds like a critical issue of balancing free speech with accountability. How does this ruling resonate within‍ the ​broader context of the #metoo movement?

Dr. Hart: this ruling⁢ could have a⁢ chilling effect on the #MeToo movement, where survivors often fear retaliation and public ⁣defamation. Benjamin Chouai, Lewis’s lawyer, ‌mentioned that this case may give Polanski, and ​others like him, “permission to kill through the media.” Such statements reflect ongoing⁤ concerns⁤ about the safety and credibility of ⁣those who speak out against powerful ‍individuals.

Editor: What advice would you offer⁢ to individuals⁣ in similar situations who are⁣ contemplating⁢ coming forward?

Dr. Hart: First and foremost, it’s crucial for anyone considering taking legal action to consult with a qualified⁣ lawyer who specializes in defamation and sexual ‌assault‌ cases. They should understand the legal landscape, including potential obstacles ⁤they may face in court. Support networks and counseling can also‍ be invaluable for emotional strength‍ throughout such a challenging process.

Editor: As this case unfolds, what should we ‌watch for in terms ​of possible actions from Charlotte Lewis’s⁢ legal ⁤team?

Dr. Hart: Lewis’s legal team may consider various ‌options,⁤ including pursuing further appeals or seeking public advocacy⁤ to ⁣raise awareness around the challenges faced by survivors of sexual assault.​ They might also assess ⁢the possibility of ⁣filing ‌an‌ additional suit based⁤ on the ‌damaging effects ⁢of Polanski’s statements, notably in how they continue to discredit Lewis and other complainants.

Editor:⁤ Thank you for shedding light on this complex issue, Dr.‌ Hart. It’s clear that the ramifications of this case extend far‍ beyond the courtroom, influencing societal perceptions of ⁤accountability ​and justice for survivors of abuse.

Dr. Hart: Thank you for having me. ⁤It’s an vital conversation, and⁣ I hope it ⁣encourages more dialog around⁤ these ⁤significant issues.

Editor: We appreciate your ‌insights. This story remains vital not just ⁤for the individuals involved but ⁢for the⁣ ongoing ‌fight for justice and recognition of survivors everywhere. Thank⁣ you again, Dr.Hart.

Keywords: Charlotte Lewis, Roman Polanski, defamation case, ⁢sexual assault, ⁢#MeToo movement, legal implications, survivors of⁤ abuse, freedom‌ of ​expression,⁤ legal advice.

You may also like

Leave a Comment