The libel case explained
The High Court has ruled against actor Noel Clarke in his libel case against The Guardian. In summary, Mrs Justice Steyn dismissed Mr Clarke’s claim, ruling that:
- In respect of the second to eighth articles, he had failed to satisfy the serious harm requirement pursuant to section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 (the “Act”);
- Whilst a small number of specific allegations were not established, the meaning of the articles was found to be substantially true for the purpose of section 2(1) of the Act, therefore providing a full defence to the libel claim; and
- The Guardian had successfully demonstrated that the first article was on a matter of public interest and that the editors responsible for publication honestly and reasonably believed that publication was in the public interest, therefore providing a second full defence to the libel claim.
Background
In April and March 2021, Guardian News and Media Limited (‘GNM’) published a series of articles accusing Noel Clarke of sexual misconduct and bullying (see Taylor Hampton’s previous article for more details). In summary, the allegations included claims that:
- There are strong grounds to believe that Mr Clarke 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.
- There are strong grounds to believe that Mr Clarke has engaged in verbal abuse, sexual harassment, bullying of women, 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.
- There are strong grounds to believe that Mr Clarke wrongly encouraged students to remove their clothes during improvisation workshops.
The first allegations were published less than a month after BAFTA announced he would receive an honorary award for Outstanding British Contribution to Cinema; on the same day the articles were published, BAFTA suspended its award. Mr Clarke immediately denied the allegations and, on 29 April 2022, brought a claim against GNM claiming defamation in relation to eight articles published between April and March 2021.
The Trial of Preliminary Issues
The meanings of the pleaded statements were first considered at a Trial of Preliminary Issues (‘TPI’) in October 2023.
A TPI is a mechanism used to determine a particular issue ahead of trial, usually to save the parties’ time and costs by narrowing the ambit of issues to be determined at trial. In this case, the TPI was ordered to determine the natural and ordinary meaning of the statements complained of, whether the statements complained of were defamatory of Mr Clarke at common law and whether the statements complained of constituted statements of fact or opinion.
Judge’s Summary
In summary, the Judge found that the article bore the meanings set out above, that each of the articles were defamatory of Mr Clarke at common law, and each of the articles amounted to statements of fact rather opinion, thereby depriving GNM of the defence of honest opinion provided for at section 3 of the Act.
Once these preliminary issues had been established, GNM’s liability was left to be determined at trial.
The Trial
The Trial took place over 6 weeks in March and April 2025 at the High Court of Justice in London.
GNM contended that the defence of truth (s. 2 DA 2013) and public interest (s. 4 DA 2013) applied to each article. These defences are explored further below:
Truth Defence (s. 2 DA 2013)
The defence of truth was one of the key defences which GNM raised. It provides a complete defence, meaning if successfully argued, it absolves the defendant of liability in relation to the defamatory statement complained of. There is a presumption in favour of the claimant that a statement is false, so the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove a statement is either true or substantially true.
GNM relied on witness evidence to establish the truth of its allegations. Evidence of sexual and other professional misconduct was given by 29 witnesses in relation to Mr Clarke’s conduct.
In response, Mr Clarke contended that almost all of GNM’s 29 witnesses were lying in their evidence, with Mrs Justice Steyn summarising that his case was predominantly based on “robust denial and counter allegations”. She dismissed Mr Clarke’s argument that many of the witnesses were engaged in a lawful means conspiracy against him, remarking that it “lacked proper foundation” and was “born of necessity, in the face of the large body of witnesses giving evidence against him”. Overall, Mrs Justice Steyn found that Mr Clarke was not a “credible or reliable witness”. She also commented that it was “inherently implausible” to propose 20 or more witnesses were lying.
Mrs Justice Steyn observed that Mr Clarke was prepared to only “admit that which was established by documentary evidence (which he had carefully studied), and even then only to the minimum extent shown.” She further remarked that “Even 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 “naughty”, “cheeky”, “teasing” 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.”
Ultimately, she found the meaning of all articles to be substantially true based on sufficient evidence provided by GNM’s witnesses. Although a small number of specific allegations were held not to be substantiated, this did not undermine the Court’s overall findings.
The defence of truth was therefore successful.
Public Interest Defence (s. 4 DA 2013)
Alongside its truth defence, GNM also argued that its articles were protected by the public interest defence. In summary, to succeed with a public interest defence, a defendant is required to establish:
- that the statement complained of was, or formed part of, a statement on a matter of public interest;
- it believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest; and
- that belief was reasonably held.
As with the truth defence, it is for a defendant to demonstrate that the requisite components of the public interest defence are made out.
The first question is an objective one for the Court. Prior authority has established that matters of public interest are of “potentially wide compass save that they exclude purely personal or private matters”. GNM contended that the first article was, or formed part of, a statement 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.”
Mrs Justice Steyn accepted that the first article was on the matters of public interest identified by GNM, as set out above.
The second question concerns the defendant’s actual state of mind at the time of publication. This assessment is heavily focused on contemporaneous documentary evidence.
Mrs Justice Steyn found that Ms Viner of GNM gave compelling and unchallenged evidence that she believed, and continues to believe, that it was in the public interest to publish. In support of this finding, the Judge referred to the fact that two meetings took place specifically to discuss the public interest in publishing and Mr Clarke’s detailed pre-publication rebuttal to the proposed allegations to be published. It was also noted that GNM recognised the importance of taking care in writing the article and ensuring that the severity of the allegations were not overstated. Further GNM made further enquiries of its sources to address the detailed rebuttal received from Mr Clarke. Ms Viner also prepared a detailed account of the factors she had considered in determining that publication was in the public interest.
The final question considers whether, judged objectively, the defendant’s honest belief that publication was in the public interest was reasonable. The focus must be on things the defendant said or knew or did, or failed to do, up to the time of publication. Attempts to verify the allegations are an important factor in the assessment of reasonableness. However, a defendant is afforded editorial judgment.
Mr Clarke advanced 5 areas of challenge as to why GNM’s belief that publication was in the public interest was not reasonable, namely: “the Hostility Issue”, “the Verification Issue”, “the Contamination Issue”, “the Reply Issue” and “the Deletion Issue”. For a detailed exposition of the Judge’s reasoning in relation to these grounds, refer to paragraphs 924 – 1018 of the judgment. In conclusion, the Judge found that GNM’s belief was “undoubtedly reasonable”.
Therefore whilst not necessary having regard to GNM’s successful truth defence, the public interest defence was also successful.
Conclusion
This case will be seen as a victory for journalism. It will help demonstrate that robust, investigative reporting on sensitive or difficult subject matters, if backed up with evidence, can be protected from libel claims on grounds of truth and public interest. Importantly, the willingness of the 20 female witnesses, who were not only prepared to open up about their experiences to a journalist, but to also engage in the court process, was crucial in helping The Guardian succeed in its truth defence.
On 23 September 2025, the High Court will consider the issues of damages and costs. Mr Clarke is expected to be ordered to pay The Guardian a substantial six-figure sum. The case will be seen as an overwhelming defeat for the actor.
for more information on our media practice see HERE.
Disclaimer: This article provides general guidance only and does not constitute legal advice. Civil procedure rules and case law can change. Always seek professional legal advice tailored to your specific situation before acting.