The tactics Donald Trump will use to win his $10billion lawsuit against the BBC have been revealed in new court documents.
Internal BBC emails seen in a Florida court are a key part of the President’s defamation case against the public service broadcaster over its now-infamous October 2024 Panorama episode.
The BBC spliced two different sections of his January 6 speech to make it seem as if Mr Trump was directly calling for violence at the capitol.
The Commander-in-Chief filed his suit in December last year, resulting in the resignations of Director-General Tim Davie and BBC News chief executive Deborah Turness.
The standard of defamation in the US requires evidence of “actual malice”.
Mr Trump’s legal will allege that an apology sent by BBC Chairman Samir Shah proves this legal standard, according to Florida court documents seen by The Times
The email provides evidence documentary producers shared links proving people could watch it in the US and shows the original pitch for the film depicted the President on a wanted-style poster, his legal team will allege.
In the letter Mr Shah wrote, he said the documentary had “unintentionally created the impression of a single, continuous section of your speech”.
He also said it had given “the mistaken impression that you had made a direct call for violent action”.
“That was an editorial error and it should not have happened,” he wrote.
“I have stated clearly and publicly that the BBC apologises for that error of judgment.”
Mr Trump’s lawyers will claim this section of the email meets the standard of “actual malice”, which in US law means it was committed with the “knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not”.
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS
BBC issues urgent review after describing Hamas terrorists as ‘journalists’BBC upholds complaints over Have I Got News For You’s ‘gratuitously offensive’ Victoria Beckham remarkBBC Question Time guest sparks outrage after ‘disgraceful’ remark about small boat migrant protests
Attorney Alejandro Brito, representing the President, acknowledged the BBC had denied the splicing was done with “actual malice or with intent” in a court hearing.
“The problem with that argument, your honour, is that it is entirely belied by the words of the chairman of the BBC,” he added.
The BBC’s legal team claim the President’s legal team “warps the chair’s words” to support their legal claim against the Panorama episode, produced with independent production company October Films.
Lawyers for the broadcaster point note that Mr Shah specifically said the edit was made “unintentionally” and therefore did not prove actual malice.
The BBC steadfastly denies claims of defamation, and have challenged the jurisdiction of the case, saying the documentary was not aired in the US.
Also disclosed in the legal battle was a 12-page original pitch document shared by senior BBC staff in February 2024.
One iteration, shared by a Panorama staff member with two senior BBC editors, said the documentary would answer the question: “How could a man who by his own admission now faces more charges than Al Capone – including falsifying business records, racketeering and conspiracy to defraud the US be considered [a] suitable candidate to hold any public office, never mind the highest in the land?”
Page one of the pitch includes a picture of Mr Trump on a “wanted” poster, with a suggestion the programme could be called “Wanted: President Trump?”
The BBC said: “We have said throughout we will robustly defend the case against us. The documentary was never aired anywhere in the US, including the state of Florida.
“We are continuing to challenge the jurisdiction of the Florida court to hear this claim, and we have filed a motion to dismiss the president’s recently amended claim.”
Our Standards:
The GB News Editorial Charter
