Katharine Viner, The Guardian.
The high court has found in favour of the Guardian after the British actor and filmmaker sued for libel over allegations of sexual misconduct.
Sometimes you just need to pull on the thread.
That’s how it started for two Guardian reporters in the spring of 2021, when they began to investigate claims about the behaviour of Noel Clarke, the prominent British actor and filmmaker.
Sirin Kale and Lucy Osborne spoke to many sources, including more than 20 women who shared their stories about working with Clarke. Their accusations covered all manner of misconduct: sexual harassment, unwanted touching and groping, sexually inappropriate behaviour, taking and sharing sexually explicit pictures and videos without consent, and bullying.
The allegations spanned a long period, from 2004 to 2019 and were the basis of a powerful series of Guardian articles and a podcast, which led to Clarke suing the Guardian.
The six-week trial took place in the high court in March and April, and the judgment came in today. Mrs Justice Steyn ruled that what the Guardian published was true, and that publishing it was in the public interest.
The judge praised our reporters’ and editors’ exhaustive approach to covering the story and noted the “extensive efforts they made to investigate, test and corroborate the information they received, and not to publish allegations which they could not substantiate”.
It is an overwhelming victory for the women who spoke to us, for the Guardian, and for investigative journalism in Britain.
Almost every day over my decade as editor-in-chief of the Guardian I have had to take difficult decisions. In many ways, deciding to fight Noel Clarke’s defamation claim was not one of them. I believed from the start this was a case we needed to see through to the end – primarily, of course, for the women who had spoken to us for our original investigation, and those who then came to the court to give testimony.
I remember when I was first told about the investigation: what struck me was the sheer scale of it all.
In cases where there are claims of sexual misconduct, even post the #MeToo movement, it is rare to find women who are prepared to speak to journalists. When you’re talking about someone who is much more powerful than you are, and is a big name in the film and TV industry, it’s a huge risk. Yet every time I received an update from the investigations team, the numbers of women had risen. Within days, we had more than a dozen sources.
By the time we had published our first investigation we had heard credible first-hand allegations from 22 women, and our superb reporters had done extensive work on corroboration. By the time we published our last article, we had spoken to more than 100 sources.
At trial we were able to rely on testimony from 26 different people, some of whom had travelled to the high court from abroad.
The many women who came to give testimony in court did not flinch, despite the often intimidating tactics used to try to deter them both before and during the trial. I attended court most days and found it very moving that so many of the women came forward and spoke so powerfully and with such commitment about some of the worst times of their lives. As the great British writer, actor and director Michaela Coel wrote about our sources: “Speaking about these incidents takes a lot of strength because some call them ‘grey areas’. They are, however, far from grey. These behaviours are unprofessional, violent, and can destroy a person’s perception of themselves, their places in the world, and their career irreparably.”
One of those witnesses, Gina Powell, a former employee of Clarke’s, was an important source in our reporting and a witness at the trial in March. Powell accused Clarke of sexually assaulting her and told the court that she was speaking up because she did not think he should be “around young women in the film industry”. Her decision to speak out, like that of all of our witnesses, was incredibly brave. In addition to calling her an impressive, honest, compelling witness who did not overstate or exaggerate any of the matters she addressed, Mrs Justice Steyn said of her: “Courage is not evinced by the absence of fear but by mastering it, and Ms Powell demonstrated admirable bravery and integrity.”
The Guardian stood by Gina and all these women, and the media as a whole will benefit from the bravery the women showed, thanks to a judgment that has fully vindicated their decision to come forward.
So this judgment is a victory for them.
It is also an important exoneration of the Guardian – our reporters, editors and lawyers. Investigative journalism is risky and expensive, and reporting that involves allegations of sexual misconduct is famously extremely challenging to publish.
There is the constant threat of litigation, which is unpleasant and time-consuming. There is the toll that it takes on the witnesses, who may have already suffered abuse, and who can often, understandably, feel they cannot put themselves through the trauma of a gruelling court case.
That’s also something faced by our journalists. Six of us were cross-examined in the high court. One reporter was on the stand for three days. Another was the subject of extremely personalised questioning. Baseless allegations of a “conspiracy” were levelled. All performed superbly, standing up for journalism in the public interest, standing up for the Guardian.
And then there is the threat of ruinous costs. At one point, and doubtless in an attempt to force us to settle the case on his terms before the trial, Noel Clarke tried to increase his damages claim to the eye-watering sum of £70m.
The Guardian is lucky to have the support of the Scott Trust behind us – our owners, who are committed to journalism in the public interest rather than pursuing commercial or political interests. They backed the journalism every step of the way.
Few defamation cases make it to trial precisely because of the financial and reputational jeopardy. But this was a case where I felt the Guardian needed to take a stand and trust in the women, our journalism and the court process.
It’s a good day for the Guardian, for media in the public interest, and for women.
