In a much-anticipated judgment, the High Court has dismissed Noel Clarke’s libel claim against the owner and publisher of the Guardian, Guardian News and Media Limited (‘GNM’).

The case received significant attention, not only because of Mr Clarke’s high profile as an award-winning actor, writer, producer and director, but also because of the seriousness of the allegations levelled against him, including those of groping, harassment and bullying.

According to Mr Clarke, the Guardian’s reporting of these allegations in a series of stories had destroyed his career, and despite initially claiming around £10 million, he had an outstanding application to amend his claim to seek upwards of £70 million in damages.. However, after a six-week long trial and testimony from dozens of witnesses, the High Court comprehensively dismissed his claim, finding that GNM had made out its truth defence under s.2(1) of the Defamation Act 2013, as well as the public interest defence in section 4 of the Act.

The case arose from the publication by the Guardian of a series of articles from April 2021 onwards, the first of which carried the headline, “ ‘Sexual Predator’: actor Noel Clarke accused of groping, harassment and bullying by 20 women”. The subsequent seven articles built on the initial story and, as the Court pointed out, it was common ground that the meanings of them did not go beyond the meaning of the first article.

As for the meaning of the first article, it was held at a preliminary hearing before Johnson J to be as follows:

“There are 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.”

Johnson J’s Order set out that the words complained of in the first article (and indeed the other seven) were defamatory of Mr Clarke. However, at trial, the Guardian argued that Mr Clarke had not properly pleaded a case on serious harm in respect of the subsequent articles, and instead, as the judgment puts it, “impermissibly rolled up the alleged effect of all the articles complained of”. In her judgment, Mrs Justice Steyn accepted this argument, stating that “the law is clear that the court should assess whether the serious harm test is met in respect of each statement – here, each article – individually, not cumulatively”. Accordingly, she held that Mr Clarke had failed to satisfy the serious harm requirement in respect of the second to eighth articles.

The primary focus of the judgment, therefore, was on the first article, and whether GNM could either prove that it was substantially true or rely on the public interest defence.

The judgment from Mrs Justice Steyn is comprehensive, covering over 200 pages. Much of this is dedicated to going through, in forensic detail, the witness evidence of those who made the allegations against Mr Clarke, assessing its credibility against the credibility of Mr Clarke. In total, 26 witnesses gave evidence at trial in support of the Guardian’s truth defence. Notably, in the light of corroborative evidence, the Judge also gave meaningful weight to a further two primary complainants who had given evidence on a hearsay basis.

Ultimately, the court was persuaded that there were numerous instances of Mr Clarke engaging in the activity that he had been accused of, and that this was “more than sufficient to find that the meaning of the first article is substantially true”. As for Mr Clarke, the Court found that “overall he was not a credible or reliable witness”.

Having found that GNM had successfully established the truth defence, which was a complete defence of the claim, the Court nonetheless went on to consider its alternative section 4 public interest defence. This required GNM to prove (i) that the statements complained of were on a matter of public interest, (ii) that it believed that publishing the statements was in the public interest, and (iii) that belief was reasonable.

On the first question, the court accepted GNM’s case that the first article was on the following matters of public interest:

“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.”

As for the second question, the Court was also persuaded that GNM believed that publication was in the public interest. It pointed to discussions in two meetings between – among others – the editor of the Guardian, Katharine Viner, its Head of Investigations, and the Director of Editorial Legal Services about the public interest in publishing. The judgment also adds that that, whilst ultimately whether the publication was in the public interest is a matter for the editors, not the reporters, “if it were appropriate to take into account the reporters’ beliefs, the answer would remain the same”.

Finally, on the matter of whether the belief that publication was in the public interest was a reasonable one, the Court had to contend with a range of arguments raised by Mr Clarke challenging the Guardian’s journalistic process, including everything from claims that the witnesses had “axes to grind” and that the journalists asked leading questions of them, to what the Court agreed amounted to a “conspiracy theory” that one of Mr Clarke’s previous co-stars was secretly coordinating the allegations.

It was also argued that Mr Clarke was given insufficient time to reply to the first article, but, just as with the others, this argument found short shrift with the judge. As she explained, “the time given to Mr Clarke to reply…was not unreasonable in the circumstances. While there were many allegations for Mr Clarke to address, they all concerned matters that were within his direct knowledge and the Guardian knew that for Mr Clarke the right to reply email would not come out of the blue. For several weeks, he had been aware, broadly, of the nature of allegations received by BAFTA. He had known that the Guardian was investigating for at least a fortnight”.

As a result, the Court found that “the Guardian has succeeded in establishing that the first article was published on a matter of public interest. Ms Viner made the decision to publish and she honestly believed (along with all of the Guardian’s editorial witnesses, as well as the reporters) that publication was in the public interest. For the reasons I have given, that belief was undoubtedly reasonable. Accordingly, the s.4 defence to the libel claim also succeeds”.

Wiggin represented GNM.

To read the judgment in full, click here.