In Noel Anthony Clarke v Guardian News and Media Limited [2025] EWHC 2193 (KB) Mrs Justice Steyn dismissed the actor/producer’s libel claim against The Guardian. The trial was held over six weeks in March/April 2025. In the 224-page judgment, Steyn J found that Mr Clarke was not a “credible or reliable witness” and the Guardian were successful in establishing the truth and public interest defences. Our April blog summarised the long procedural history of the libel proceedings and events leading up to trial.
The defamation
The libel claim arose from an article published by the Guardian on 29 April 2021 titled “’Sexual predator’: actor Noel Clarke accused of groping, harassment and bullying by 20 women”(‘the first article’), together with six further articles and a podcast (‘the second the eighth articles’). The meanings of each of the Articles are set out at paragraph 8 of the judgment. The first article was the focus of the claim and at a Trial of Preliminary Issues (Noel Anthony Clarke v Guardian News & Media Limited [2023] EWHC 2734 (KB)) Johnson J had determined that the First Article bore the following meaning:
“There 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’s naked audition.”
Mr Clarke also originally included a claim in data protection, but agreed to withdraw it.
Issues to be determined at trial
The Guardian accepted that the first article has caused or was likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant in accordance with section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013. However, they questioned whether serious harm was met in respect of the remaining articles.
As alluded to above, the Guardian relied on two statutory defences in respect of the Articles, being the defence of truth (section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013) and public interest (section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013). In relation to the truth defence, the issue to be determined was whether the Guardian had proved that the meaning of the Articles was substantially true. In relation to the public interest defence, the Guardian had to show that each of the Articles was on a matter of public interest, that the Guardian’s editors honestly believed that the publication was on a matter of public interest, and that such belief was reasonable.
Serious harm
In relation to the second to eighth articles, the Guardian submitted that there was no properly pleaded case on serious harm as the Claimant had amalgamated their effect together to plead serious harm, despite them being separate publications each with their own meanings. The Claimant had not responded to this in their Reply and submitted at trial that there is no requirement to prove that each individual publication caused serious harm.
It was held that the correct test requires assessment of whether the serious harm test is satisfied in respect of each publication individually. Steyn J concluded that the Claimant had not properly pleaded the facts and matters on which he relies in order to satisfy the serious harm requirement in respect of the second to eighth articles individually and did not adduce any evidence in respect of harm attributable to those articles. Therefore, the libel claim in respect of the second to eighth articles failed as a result of not satisfying the requirement for serious harm.
The Truth defence
The Court heard from 26 witnesses called by the Guardian and considered written statements from three further witnesses in support of the truth defence.
Steyn J commented that Mr Clarke was an unreliable witness, pointing out that he had to acknowledge that some of his statements, once challenged by documentary evidence, were lies. The Judge said that “This was reflective of his general pattern of only being prepared to admit that which was established by documentary evidence (which he had carefully studied), and even then only to the minimum extent shown” and that when, at trial, he was presented with further documentary evidence of his wrongdoing he “desperately invented a baseless allegation of forgery or falsification of documents.” The Judge held that the suggestion that more than 20 witnesses would come to court to lie was “inherently implausible” whilst Mr Clarke had a “clear motive to lie”.
Whilst a small number of specific allegations were not established, it was concluded that the behaviours identified in the meaning of the articles were established, and the findings were more than sufficient to show that the meaning was substantially true. Indeed, the Judge went much further and made a number of positive findings against Clarke of unwanted sexual contact, sexual harassment, bullying and abuse of power.
Therefore, the libel claim fell to be dismissed.
The Public Interest defence
In respect of the public interest defence the Court focused on the first article as the libel claim in respect of the second to eighth articles had already been dismissed for failing to satisfy the requirement for serious harm and the truth defence being successful.
Styen J held that the first article was on the matters of public interest identified by the Guardian and that the editor responsible for publishing the first article gave “compelling and unchallenged evidence that she believed, and continues to believe, that it was in the public interest to publish.” It was commented on that the two other editors who also had a role in the decision to publish the first article also honestly believed that publication was in the public interest.
With regards to whether the belief that publication was in the public interest was reasonable. Mrs Justice Steyn, considering the steps taken to verify the matters published, the opportunities given to Mr Clarke to comment on the allegations and the tone and presentation of the article, held that such belief was reasonable
It was therefore concluded that the Guardian had also succeeded in establishing the public interest defence and so again, the libel claim fell to be dismissed.
What now?
The Court will consider what costs order to make and any other consequential arguments at a hearing on 23 September 2025. It seems likely that Mr Clarke will be ordered to pay a six-figure sum to The Guardian.
This post originally appeared on the Brett Wilson Media and Communications Blog and is reproduced with permission and thanks.
Leave a Reply