\n<\/p>\n
The court found in the Guardian\u2019s favour on both its defences: that the articles it published on sexual misconduct allegations against Noel Clarke were true or substantially true; and that publication of the articles was in the public interest.<\/p>\n
It said that Clarke was, overall, \u201cnot a credible or reliable witness\u201d.<\/p>\n
Regarding the first article published by the Guardian, Steyn said: \u201cThere 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\u2019s naked audition.\u201d<\/p>\n
She said: \u201cThe meanings of all eight articles were found to be substantially true. The Guardian established that the truth defence applied and so the libel claim fell to be dismissed.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
The court focused on the first article on the basis that if the public interest defence succeeded in respect of that, it should succeed on the subsequent articles.<\/p>\n
The Guardian mounted a public interest defence principally on the grounds that a successful man in the film and television industry had used his power and status to subject women to sexual harassment and abuse, unwanted sexual contact, mistreatment and bullying over many years. It also said the industry had failed to protect female workers.<\/p>\n
The court found that Katharine Viner, the Guardian\u2019s editor-in-chief, \u201chonestly believed publication was in the public interest. If it were necessary to look beyond her belief, the other editors and the reporters all believed publication was in the public interest, too\u201d.<\/p>\n
Viner told the court that \u201csexual harassment is an important subject for the Guardian to report on\u201d. The first article \u201ctold a story of the specific ways in which imbalances of power and influence were serially abused\u201d, she said, and there was \u201ca very clear public interest in exposing allegations of misconduct\u201d in the context of Clarke having recently been given a prestigious award by Bafta.<\/p>\n
The court concluded that Viner had \u201cgiven compelling and unchallenged evidence that she believed, and continues to believe, that it was in the public interest to publish\u201d.<\/p>\n
Steyn said the Guardian \u201csucceeded 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\u2019s editorial witnesses, as well as the reporters) that publication was in the public interest \u2026 That belief was undoubtedly reasonable.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/span>Noel Clarke loses libel case against Guardian over sexual misconduct investigation \u2013 video<\/span><\/li>\n Steyn said the question was whether there were strong grounds to believe that, over 15 years, Clarke had used his power to prey on and harass female colleagues, had sometimes bullied female colleagues, had engaged in unwanted sexual contact, kissing, touching or groping, engaged in sexually inappropriate behaviour and comments, had engaged in professional misconduct, and had taken and shared explicit pictures and videos without consent.<\/p>\n She said that \u201cinstances of each of those elements have been established\u201d and this is \u201cmore than sufficient to find that the meaning of the first article is substantially true\u201d.<\/p>\n The judge said: \u201cThe strong impression that I gained is that Mr Clarke felt that he could sexually proposition any woman he wanted, as reflected in his evidence that he has \u2018been turned down a million times\u2019, even allowing for the obvious hyperbole \u2013 regardless of the circumstances.<\/p>\n \u201cHe had no understanding of how pressuring such conduct could be, or how uncomfortable it could make young women, in subordinate roles to him, feel while performing their jobs.\u201d<\/p>\n Steyn also found that Clarke \u201ccovertly filmed the naked auditions\u201d of two women and showed the footage to a colleague. \u201cIt is probable that Mr Clarke also recorded, or sought to record, footage of at least one of the other actors who attended the final audition.<\/p>\n \u201cMr Clarke did so knowing that the actors had been firmly assured that their naked auditions would not be recorded.\u201d<\/p>\n She continued that the \u201cinevitable inference\u201d was that Clarke \u201cacted in this way for his own sexual gratification\u201d.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n The court heard oral evidence from Clarke plus eight witnesses called on his behalf. Written statements were submitted from six further witnesses.<\/p>\n For the Guardian, the court heard oral evidence relating to the truth defence from 26 witnesses and considered witness statements from three others, plus six Guardian journalists who gave evidence relating to the public interest defence.<\/p>\n A striking feature of Clarke\u2019s case was that he alleged that \u201calmost all of the Guardian\u2019s 29 witnesses to the truth defence are lying, at least in part, in the evidence they have given to the court\u201d.<\/p>\n His claim that there was a conspiracy against him \u201clacked any proper foundation\u201d.<\/p>\n The court found that although there were connections among the Guardian\u2019s witnesses to the defence of truth, many came forward independently after the first article was published or had no involvement until they were asked to give evidence.<\/p>\n \u201cThere has been no conspiracy to lie. In the absence of a conspiracy, Mr Clarke\u2019s case that more than 20 witnesses \u2013 none of whom are parties or have a stake in this case, as he does \u2013 have come to court to lie is inherently implausible.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/li>\n The court considered that \u201coverall, Mr Clarke was not a credible or reliable witness\u201d.<\/p>\n Steyn said his case had been \u201calmost entirely one of robust denial and counter-allegations\u201d. The judgment said Clarke had a \u201cvery clear motive to lie. He says the Guardian\u2019s publications have been career-ending and he values success in the claim in excess of \u00a370m \u2026<\/p>\n \u201cIt is obvious that the first article had a hugely damaging impact on his reputation, his career and his finances. He has sued the Guardian for libel, involving both parties in a long, complex and expensive trial, to try to repair that damage.\u201d<\/p>\n However, Steyn added: \u201cOne aspect of Mr Clarke\u2019s evidence that I accept is his belief that he is not what the Guardian \u2018branded\u2019 him. Although I find that he has been untruthful about most of the allegations, in his efforts to salvage his career, his initial response that \u2018some of my actions have affected people in ways I did not intend or realise\u2019 was true.<\/p>\n \u201cEven when his actions have been calculated and deliberate, Mr Clarke has tended to be oblivious to their impact, regarding his own behaviour as merely being \u2018naughty\u2019, \u2018cheeky\u2019, \u2018teasing\u2019 or within his rights as a director or producer. In addition, he does not see himself as reflected in the articles because there is a kinder, more generous side to him. But that does not detract from the conclusions I have reached.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/li>\n The court heard oral evidence in support of the public interest defence from six witnesses called by the Guardian: Katharine Viner, the editor-in-chief; Owen Gibson, the deputy editor; Paul Lewis, the head of investigations; Nicole Jackson, the head of audio, and Lucy Osborne and Sirin Kale, the main reporters.<\/p>\n Steyn said she agreed with Viner\u2019s evidence that \u201cthe factual accounts of the Guardian\u2019s sources are presented in \u2018a measured and accurate way\u2019, without being \u2018exaggerated or sensationalised\u2019\u201d.<\/p>\n Gibson \u201cgave unchallenged and obviously honest and reliable evidence regarding the investigation, the decision-making process, and his belief that publication of the first article was in the public interest\u201d.<\/p>\n Regarding Lewis, Osborne and Kale, Steyn said each gave \u201chonest and reliable evidence\u201d.<\/p>\n Osborne and Kale were each accused in cross-examination of having \u201can agenda\u201d, seemingly to \u201cget Noel Clarke\u201d. Steyn said: \u201cThat allegation has no foundation, and is demonstrably disproved by the materials before me which show the extensive efforts they made to investigate, test and corroborate the information they received, and not to publish allegations which they could not substantiate.\u201d<\/p>\n Osborne and Kale exercised \u201ccritical reasoning\u201d, and tested and investigated the information they received, the judgment says.<\/p>\n The claimant made the \u201cwild and wholly unfounded allegation\u201d that Lewis was a \u201crogue journalist with his own agenda\u201d. He was accused of lying and being evasive.<\/p>\n Steyn said of Lewis: \u201cI found him to be an honest and reliable witness. Across the two days that he gave evidence, his conscientiousness, professionalism, integrity and desire to assist the court shone through. I have no hesitation in finding that he, too, honestly believed that publication of the first article was in the public interest.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/li>\n \u201cThe Guardian has succeeded in establishing both truth and public interest defences to the libel claim. In addition, in respect of the second to eighth articles, the serious harm <\/strong>requirement was not met. The data protection claim was withdrawn. Accordingly, Mr Clarke\u2019s libel and data protection claims against the Guardian are dismissed.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/li>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 1. Were the allegations true? The court found in the Guardian\u2019s favour on both its defences: that the articles it published on sexual misconduct allegations against Noel Clarke were true or substantially true; and that publication of the articles was in the public interest. It said that Clarke was, overall, \u201cnot a credible or reliable<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":17324,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[56],"tags":[1844,10449,160,9108,1510,949,788,8000,10368,571],"class_list":{"0":"post-17323","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-crime-justice","8":"tag-case","9":"tag-clarkes","10":"tag-court","11":"tag-findings","12":"tag-guardian","13":"tag-high","14":"tag-key","15":"tag-libel","16":"tag-noel","17":"tag-ruling"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17323","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=17323"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17323\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/17324"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=17323"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=17323"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=17323"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}3. <\/span>The allegations<\/h2>\n
4. <\/span>The witnesses <\/h2>\n
5. <\/span>Noel Clarke<\/h2>\n
6. <\/span>The Guardian\u2019s journalists<\/h2>\n
7. <\/span>The court\u2019s conclusion<\/h2>\n