Why Donald Trump's BBC Defamation Claim Is Doomed To Fail: Attorneys

[Emrys]

...
Legal experts say the case could test how far cross-border journalism is protected from political retaliation—and, as media lawyer Mark Stephens argues, it may reveal as much about Trump’s use of litigation as a political weapon as it does about the BBC’s editorial accountability.
...
Mark Stephens CBE, a leading international media lawyer at Howard Kennedy LLP based in London, said that under British law, any attempt to sue in the United Kingdom is already out of time. "In the UK, his defamation claim is out of time. He had until midnight on October 27, 2025, to file, after which he can’t sue—it’s time-barred," he said.
...
Trump’s lawyers have indicated that the case would be brought in Florida, where he resides.
...
But Stephens questioned whether U.S. courts would even have jurisdiction.

"The problem is that Panorama wasn’t broadcast in the USA and the BBC iPlayer—the online streaming service—similar to Hulu—that lets UK viewers watch BBC programs on demand—isn’t legally available in the U.S. without a VPN; and that would prove to be a key issue in Trump’s potential lawsuit," he said.

https://www.newsweek.com/why-donald-trump-bbc-defamation-claim-doomed-attorneys-11033342

According to those cited in the article, even if Trump's lawyers successfully made the case that secondary circulation of the documentary in the US by entities other than the BBC without its permission was relevant and that the splicing together of quotes from him "'substantially altered' the quote’s perceived meaning", arguably passing the legal test of "falsity", the tests of "harm and actual malice" would still have to be addressed.

Any case would open up Trump's actions and many words during the period around January 6 to discovery and close scrutiny. In terms of Trump's claim for $1 billion damages, the sum seems to have been plucked from thin air for its chilling effect and typical hyperbole. His ardent fans in the US would be unlikely to have had their opinion of him affected for the worse even if they'd seen the documentary, and those who weren't his fans have already had plenty of reason to consider his name mud, including the many courts which sentenced those involved in January 6 for their actions.

The whole episode has led to seismic upheaval in the BBC, which has already been struggling under commercial pressures from changes in the broadcast media ecosystem and perennial accusations of bias from various points along the political spectrum, though accusations from the likes of Leavitt that the BBC is "far-left" are utterly laughable, and that view is only shared by the rolling-eyed fringe of the fringe in the UK.

So far, the BBC has intimated that it will issue a formal apology, but it looks like Trump can whistle for the $1 billion. The network's management has proven lily-livered in the face of criticism in the past, especially since the Tories stacked its board and higher management echelons with rightwingers, but any monetary settlement would effectively be coming from the BBC's annual licence payers among the UK's public, and it's already constantly cash-strapped and regularly accused of not giving value for money.