Key findings from the high court ruling in Noel Clarke’s libel case against the Guardian | The Guardian

1. Have been the allegations true?The court docket discovered within the Guardian’s favour on each its defences: that the articles it revealed on sexual misconduct allegations towards Noel Clarke had been true or considerably true; and that publication of the articles was within the public curiosity.It stated that Clarke was, general, “not a reputable or dependable witness”.Relating to the primary article revealed by the Guardian, Steyn stated: “There are robust grounds to consider that the claimant is a serial abuser of ladies, that he has, over 15 years, used his energy to prey on and harass and typically bully feminine colleagues, that he has engaged in undesirable sexual contact, kissing, touching or groping, sexually inappropriate behaviour and feedback, {and professional} misconduct, taking and sharing express footage and movies with out consent, together with secretly filming a younger actor’s bare audition.”She stated: “The meanings of all eight articles had been discovered to be considerably true. The Guardian established that the reality defence utilized and so the libel declare fell to be dismissed.2. Was there a public curiosity in publishing the allegations?The court docket targeted on the primary article on the premise that if the general public curiosity defence succeeded in respect of that, it ought to succeed on the next articles.The Guardian mounted a public curiosity defence principally on the grounds {that a} profitable man within the movie and tv trade had used his energy and standing to topic girls to sexual harassment and abuse, undesirable sexual contact, mistreatment and bullying over a few years. It additionally stated the trade had failed to guard feminine staff.The court docket discovered that Katharine Viner, the Guardian’s editor-in-chief, “truthfully believed publication was within the public curiosity. If it had been essential to look past her perception, the opposite editors and the reporters all believed publication was within the public curiosity, too”.Viner instructed the court docket that “sexual harassment is a vital topic for the Guardian to report on”. The primary article “instructed a narrative of the precise methods through which imbalances of energy and affect had been serially abused”, she stated, and there was “a really clear public curiosity in exposing allegations of misconduct” within the context of Clarke having lately been given a prestigious award by Bafta.The court docket concluded that Viner had “given compelling and unchallenged proof that she believed, and continues to consider, that it was within the public curiosity to publish”.Steyn stated the Guardian “succeeded in establishing that the primary article was revealed on a matter of public curiosity. Ms Viner made the choice to publish and he or she truthfully believed (together with all the Guardian’s editorial witnesses, in addition to the reporters) that publication was within the public curiosity … That perception was undoubtedly affordable.”Noel Clarke loses libel case towards Guardian over sexual misconduct investigation – video3. The allegationsSteyn stated the query was whether or not there have been robust grounds to consider that, over 15 years, Clarke had used his energy to prey on and harass feminine colleagues, had typically bullied feminine colleagues, had engaged in undesirable sexual contact, kissing, touching or groping, engaged in sexually inappropriate behaviour and feedback, had engaged in skilled misconduct, and had taken and shared express footage and movies with out consent.She stated that “situations of every of these components have been established” and that is “greater than adequate to search out that the that means of the primary article is considerably true”.The choose stated: “The robust impression that I gained is that Mr Clarke felt that he might sexually proposition any girl he wished, as mirrored in his proof that he has ‘been turned down 1,000,000 instances’, even permitting for the plain hyperbole – whatever the circumstances.“He had no understanding of how pressuring such conduct could possibly be, or how uncomfortable it might make younger girls, in subordinate roles to him, really feel whereas performing their jobs.”Steyn additionally discovered that Clarke “covertly filmed the bare auditions” of two girls and confirmed the footage to a colleague. “It’s possible that Mr Clarke additionally recorded, or sought to document, footage of at the very least one of many different actors who attended the ultimate audition.“Mr Clarke did so realizing that the actors had been firmly assured that their bare auditions wouldn’t be recorded.”She continued that the “inevitable inference” was that Clarke “acted on this approach for his personal sexual gratification”.4. The witnesses The court docket heard oral proof from Clarke plus eight witnesses known as on his behalf. Written statements had been submitted from six additional witnesses.For the Guardian, the court docket heard oral proof referring to the reality defence from 26 witnesses and regarded witness statements from three others, plus six Guardian journalists who gave proof referring to the general public curiosity defence.A putting function of Clarke’s case was that he alleged that “virtually all the Guardian’s 29 witnesses to the reality defence are mendacity, at the very least partly, within the proof they’ve given to the court docket”.His declare that there was a conspiracy towards him “lacked any correct basis”.The court docket discovered that though there have been connections among the many Guardian’s witnesses to the defence of reality, many got here ahead independently after the primary article was revealed or had no involvement till they had been requested to present proof.“There was no conspiracy to lie. Within the absence of a conspiracy, Mr Clarke’s case that greater than 20 witnesses – none of whom are events or have a stake on this case, as he does – have come to court docket to lie is inherently implausible.”5. Noel ClarkeThe court docket thought-about that “general, Mr Clarke was not a reputable or dependable witness”.Steyn stated his case had been “virtually completely one among sturdy denial and counter-allegations”. The judgment stated Clarke had a “very clear motive to lie. He says the Guardian’s publications have been career-ending and he values success within the declare in extra of £70m …“It’s apparent that the primary article had a vastly damaging impression on his status, his profession and his funds. He has sued the Guardian for libel, involving each events in a protracted, advanced and costly trial, to attempt to restore that injury.”Nevertheless, Steyn added: “One side of Mr Clarke’s proof that I settle for is his perception that he’s not what the Guardian ‘branded’ him. Though I discover that he has been untruthful about a lot of the allegations, in his efforts to salvage his profession, his preliminary response that ‘a few of my actions have affected individuals in methods I didn’t intend or realise’ was true.“Even when his actions have been calculated and deliberate, Mr Clarke has tended to be oblivious to their impression, concerning his personal behaviour as merely being ‘naughty’, ‘cheeky’, ‘teasing’ or inside his rights as a director or producer. As well as, he doesn’t see himself as mirrored within the articles as a result of there’s a kinder, extra beneficiant facet to him. However that doesn’t detract from the conclusions I’ve reached.”6. The Guardian’s journalistsThe court docket heard oral proof in assist of the general public curiosity defence from six witnesses known as by the Guardian: Katharine Viner, the editor-in-chief; Owen Gibson, the deputy editor; Paul Lewis, the pinnacle of investigations; Nicole Jackson, the pinnacle of audio, and Lucy Osborne and Sirin Kale, the primary reporters.Steyn stated she agreed with Viner’s proof that “the factual accounts of the Guardian’s sources are introduced in ‘a measured and correct approach’, with out being ‘exaggerated or sensationalised’”.Gibson “gave unchallenged and clearly trustworthy and dependable proof concerning the investigation, the decision-making course of, and his perception that publication of the primary article was within the public curiosity”.Relating to Lewis, Osborne and Kale, Steyn stated every gave “trustworthy and dependable proof”.Osborne and Kale had been every accused in cross-examination of getting “an agenda”, seemingly to “get Noel Clarke”. Steyn stated: “That allegation has no basis, and is demonstrably disproved by the supplies earlier than me which present the intensive efforts they made to analyze, take a look at and corroborate the data they obtained, and to not publish allegations which they may not substantiate.”Osborne and Kale exercised “essential reasoning”, and examined and investigated the data they obtained, the judgment says.The claimant made the “wild and wholly unfounded allegation” that Lewis was a “rogue journalist together with his personal agenda”. He was accused of mendacity and being evasive.Steyn stated of Lewis: “I discovered him to be an trustworthy and dependable witness. Throughout the 2 days that he gave proof, his conscientiousness, professionalism, integrity and want to help the court docket shone by. I’ve no hesitation to find that he, too, truthfully believed that publication of the primary article was within the public curiosity.”7. The court docket’s conclusion“The Guardian has succeeded in establishing each reality and public curiosity defences to the libel declare. As well as, in respect of the second to eighth articles, the intense hurt requirement was not met. The info safety declare was withdrawn. Accordingly, Mr Clarke’s libel and information safety claims towards the Guardian are dismissed.”