Morning:
8°c
Photographer's anger as Jude Law told he won’t face assault charge
Max Thurlow, London LiteUpdated 13:54pm on 16 Sep 2009
A woman photographer who accused Jude Law of assaulting her said today she felt let down that the actor will not face charges.
Harsha Gopal claimed she was elbowed in the face by the Alfie star as he left a restaurant in Mayfair during the summer, but prosecutors have decided his behaviour was “reasonable”.
Clash: Jude Law and Harsha Gopal outside the Automat Club in July
Law, 36, was attending a dinner party in July at the Automat club hosted by Dark Knight director Christopher Nolan, where guests included Leonardo DiCaprio.
He left at 12.30am to get into a waiting car and Ms Gopal was among a group of photographers waiting outside.
As she tried to snap Law, Ms Gopal, 28, was allegedly struck and claimed the blow left her face “still stinging” the next day.
She said: “The CPS ruling is disappointing to say the least. Court proceedings would have set the record straight. I was struck in the face while doing my job and I have not received any form of apology.”
A CPS spokesman said: “It is highly likely that a court would decide his actions were reasonable given that his path was deliberately impeded by a crowd of photographers.”
The actor's lawyer dismissed the allegations as “nonsense”.
In 2007, Law escaped charges for allegedly assaulting another photographer outside his Maida Vale home, which he denied.
He is currently starring in Hamlet on Broadway and expecting a fourth child following a brief relationship with American model Samantha Burke.
Reader views (5)
Im with CW. I think these paps deserve all they get. Poor Jude out for supper with mates and having these dreadful people popping up taking photos. A horrendous invasion of privacy, and all she can say is 'Im doing my job'. I say get another job, or at the very least dont be so intrusive. Darling, you got what you deserve.
- Mark O, Norwich England, 17/09/2009 09:04
Report abuse
The paparazzi complaining about unfair treatment?
What planet do these parasitic life-forms with cameras live on?
Well done to those who have made the decision to recognise the need to protect the victims of the paparazzi's greed, ignorance and bullying.
- Tango Mike, Kensington, London, 16/09/2009 23:16
Report abuse
This kind of incident will eat into respect for British 'justice'. Famous people are answerable to the law. I bet that if an ordinary member of the public had struck this unfortunate photographer, he or she would have been up before the magistrates the following week on an assualt charge. Prosecutors should at lest try to win justice, and not be deterred by 'fame'.
- Mark, Venice, Italy, 16/09/2009 23:15
Report abuse
You live by the camera, you die by the camera. Paparazzi have to face irate celebrities as a hazard of their job. If you can't put up with the possibility of a pasting from Jude Law, don't stand in the way!
The flip side is if you are a celebrity, crowds of fans and aggressive paparazzi are part of the price of fame. Live with it. Once you live in the glare of the cameras, like it or not, you are public property. They keep you where you are!
- Edward Thompson, Bedfordshire, 16/09/2009 17:00
Report abuse
At last, common sense from the CPS. It is about time that the paparrazi scum got their come uppance.
- Christopher Watts, London, 16/09/2009 16:39
Report abuse
