{"id":19910,"date":"2025-09-08T17:17:38","date_gmt":"2025-09-08T17:17:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/?p=19910"},"modified":"2025-09-08T17:17:38","modified_gmt":"2025-09-08T17:17:38","slug":"the-noel-clarke-judgment-was-a-victory-for-the-freedom-of-the-press-but-it-should-also-act-as-a-warning-nik-williams","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/?p=19910","title":{"rendered":"The Noel Clarke judgment was a victory for the freedom of the press \u2013 but it should also act as a warning | Nik Williams"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n<\/p>\n

T<\/span>he high court\u2019s ruling in favour of the Guardian struck a powerful blow for the free press and for holding those accused of sexual misconduct to account. While across the globe, we have seen the courtroom as the venue of choice to push back against the legacy of the #MeToo movement, this victory sent a clear signal that the voices of those affected have lost none of their power, impact or poignancy.<\/p>\n

Noel Clarke is an actor, screenwriter, producer and director who is best known for the Hood trilogy, as well as acting in Doctor Who. In 2022, he sued the Guardian for its reporting based on the testimony of 20 women who accused him of \u201csexual harassment, unwanted touching or groping, sexually inappropriate behaviour and comments on set, professional misconduct, taking and sharing sexually explicit pictures and videos without consent, and bullying between 2004 and 2019\u201d.<\/p>\n

Clarke claimed that the Guardian had defamed him and breached his data protection rights. More than two years later, on 22 August 2025, the high court disagreed, stating that: \u201cThe Guardian has succeeded in establishing both truth and public interest defences to the libel claim.\u201d As the data protection claim had been withdrawn, the judge dismissed the claim against the Guardian. Clarke\u2019s defeat was emphatic, but we cannot let that cloud the damage that has already been done.<\/p>\n

Embedded within Clarke\u2019s legal action against the Guardian is another threat, one that cannot be overlooked if we value public interest reporting.<\/p>\n

Prior to the commencement of the trial, Clarke lodged an amended application to add a new cause of action for \u201cconspiracy to injure by unlawful means\u201d against an expanded list of defendants. Both lawful and unlawful means conspiracy are defined by two or more people coming together with an intention to injure the claimant and whose acts result in loss and damage. So in Clarke\u2019s presentation of the case, the articles and podcast episode were not standalone pieces of \u201cshoddy\u201d journalism, they were part of a coordinated effort to \u201cto impede his receipt of a Bafta award\u201d and to pervert the course of justice \u201cby attempting to procure his prosecution.\u201d Clarke\u2019s legal representative stated this more succinctly: \u201cthe defamation was \u2026 the mere instrument\u201d.<\/p>\n

The high court judgment stated \u201cClarke\u2019s case that there is an unlawful means conspiracy against him \u2026 lacked any proper foundation\u201d, but the status of the amended application, which has yet to be tested in court, is unclear. Yet in some ways the damage may have already been done. Alleging a conspiracy between journalists, sources and those the claimant believes to be sources poisons the roots that sustain public interest journalism. You can kill a story by threatening a journalist or media outlet. You can also achieve the same goal by making sure no source or witness dares to come forward, with the costs, turmoil and unpredictability of mounting a defence in court enough to encourage silence. Time will only tell if others are watching and taking notes.<\/p>\n

This is the first time, to my knowledge, this tort has been used against public interest journalism. It is not, however, the first time it has been used to stifle acts of public participation. In 2024, Shell used the tort as the primary charge against Greenpeace. While the parties settled the action, according to Doughty Street Chambers, \u201c[t]he claim raised legal issues regarding the limits of the tort of unlawful means conspiracy and its relationship with the freedoms of expression and assembly\u201d.<\/p>\n

Strategic lawsuits against public participation (Slapps) and other abusive legal actions are seldom designed to succeed in court \u2013 the process is the punishment. Every minute of distracted focus or every pound put towards a legal defence is something redirected away from the target\u2019s work. How can journalists dig into a subject or cultivate a source if they are expected to prepare for lengthy and unpredictable court proceedings?<\/p>\n

The more distracting, intensive, intrusive and costly this process is, the more likely a litigation target is to hold up their hands and step away, giving the claimant whatever they are demanding. If Clarke had turned his sights on a blogger, social media user or a smaller media outlet, let alone one of the Guardian\u2019s sources individually, we may not have had a court hearing, let alone a victory.<\/p>\n

The Guardian is not alone. Journalists, including freelancers, as well as environmental campaigners, sexual violence survivors, local Facebook group users, academics and members of the public have been forced to defend their public interest speech and navigate the alien world of the British court system. With legal aid out of reach for the vast majority, many have no choice but to self-censor or consider defending themselves.<\/p>\n

skip past newsletter promotion<\/p>\n

Sign up to Matters of Opinion<\/span><\/p>\n

Guardian columnists and writers on what they\u2019ve been debating, thinking about, reading, and more<\/p>\n

Privacy Notice: <\/strong>Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.<\/span><\/p>\n

The UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, which I co-chair, has long called for a change in the law to support and empower courts and judges to throw out abusive legal actions before they can do damage. But last year\u2019s general election wiped out all progress, except narrow and flawed protections for reporting on economic crime. As the current government has deprioritised progress against a universal anti-Slapp law, we all remain vulnerable. Abuse of the UK\u2019s defamation law earned London the moniker \u201ca town named sue\u201d, but those seeking to avoid scrutiny are no longer restricted to this one cause of action alone.<\/p>\n

The British legal system is malleable enough to establish a wide range of laws that can be used to target protected speech. If one is reformed to prevent such abuse, claimants can just look elsewhere, whether that means malicious falsehood, data protection, privacy, harassment or trespass, to name but a few. Further to this, we have seen how claimants learn from each other. Tactics that may have failed in one action could take on new life in another. Dust it off, make a few tweaks, learn from where the other party failed \u2013 and then you are good to go.<\/p>\n

Without robust protections for journalism and free speech, namely a universal anti-Slapp law, the legal landscape will continue to be skewed in favour of those with something to hide. Journalists are often the canary in the coalmine for threats such as these. Here\u2019s hoping we pay attention to the warnings.<\/p>\n