The High Court has dismissed the libel claim brought against Guardian News and Media (“GNM”) by the actor, screenwriter, producer and director Noel Clarke.
Mr Clarke had sued over eight articles published by The Guardian in 2021 and 2022. He was claiming over £10m in damages and had an outstanding application to amend his damages claim to over £70m.
The claim was tried over six weeks in March and April this year.
Steyn J held that, in respect of each of the last seven articles, Mr Clarke had failed to show that it had caused or was likely to cause serious harm to his reputation, a condition of actionability imposed by s.1 of the Defamation Act 2013.
But in any event GNM succeeded in its two defences in respect of each of the eight articles. These were that the defamatory meaning of the article was substantially true within the meaning of s.2 of the 2013 Act; and that the articles were published on matters of public interest and that GNM reasonably believed that publishing them was in the public interest (s.4 of the 2013 Act).
It was common ground that the defamatory meaning of the seven follow up articles did not go beyond that of the first, and longest, article which was entitled “‘Sexual predator’: actor Noel Clarke accused of groping, harassment and bullying by 20 women”. So, the truth defence in respect of all eight articles was focused principally on the meaning of first article.
At an earlier hearing the High Court had determined that the first article meant that there were “strong grounds to believe that the claimant is a serial abuser of women, that he has, over 15 years, used his power to prey on and harass and sometimes bully female colleagues, that he has engaged in unwanted sexual contact, kissing, touching or groping, sexually inappropriate behaviour and comments, and professional misconduct, taking and sharing explicit pictures and videos without consent, including secretly filming a young actor’s naked audition.”
GNM relied on the evidence of twenty-nine witnesses to prove that this allegation was substantially true. Twenty of these gave evidence about sexual or other professional misconduct towards them by Mr Clarke.
Mr Clarke alleged that almost all the Guardian’s twenty-nine truth witnesses were lying, at least in part, in their evidence. His case was characterised by the court as almost entirely one of “robust denial and counter allegations”. It included an un-pleaded allegation of an unlawful means conspiracy to lie about him.
The court found that numerous instances of each element of the defamatory meaning had been established by GNM, including covertly filming and showing others explicit images of women without their consent.
While the court accepted some of Mr Clarke’s evidence, but it did not find him to be a “credible or reliable witness”. It dismissed his unlawful means conspiracy case as “born of necessity, in the face of the large body of witnesses giving evidence against him”, but it “lacked any proper foundation”. There was no evidential basis on which such an allegation could have been put.
The public interest speech defence also focussed principally on the first article, as the thrust of the subsequent articles was largely the same and they repeated or developed allegations made in that article.
The court accepted GNM’s case that the public interest matters reported on in the first article were:
“The use by a successful male public figure in the film and television industry (the Claimant) of his power and status to subject women in the industry (and in particular women working for him) to sexual harassment and abuse, unwanted sexual contact, mistreatment and bullying over many years;
BAFTA’s decision to make an award to the Claimant for an Outstanding Contribution to Cinema (‘the award’) and the making of the award after BAFTA had received allegations of such conduct;
The failure of the industry to prevent such conduct and protect women in the industry who might be preyed on in this way.”
In finding that the GNM editors reasonably believed that it was in the public interest to publish the allegations in the first article, the court rejected a series of complaints by Mr Clarke about the journalistic process. These included bias, failure properly to verify the allegations, lack of balance and allowing insufficient time for Mr Clarke’s pre-publication right of reply.
There will be a hearing in September at which orders consequential on the dismissal of the libel claim will be made.
Gavin Millar KC represented GNM instructed by Wiggin.
Click here for the full judgment.