High Court Dismisses High-profile Libel Claim, Finding That Defences Of Truth And Public Interest Are Established

The decision clarifies that in assessing a publisher's reasonable belief for the public interest defence, the court will consider the publisher's general approach, including their investigation of the matter published.

In a decision dismissing Noel Clarke's high-profile libel claim against the Guardian, the High Court has provided a reminder of the importance of thorough investigation, robust verification procedures and careful presentation when reporting on matters of public interest: Clarke v Guardian News & Media Ltd [2025] EWHC 2193 (KB).

The decision (much of which is highly fact-specific) also provides helpful guidance on the kinds of matters that the court will have regard to when assessing the reasonableness of a defendant's belief that publishing a statement was in the public interest, for the purposes of section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013. In this case, the court was persuaded that there was "undoubtedly" a reasonable belief that publication was in the public interest after hearing extensive evidence of the fast-paced but thorough investigation and decision-making process that was carried out by the Guardian prior to publication.

Background

Mr Clarke brought a claim for libel in respect of an article first published by the Guardian on 29 April 2021 entitled "Sexual predator: actor Noel Clarke accused of groping, harassment and bullying by 20 women", along with six additional articles and a podcast (referred to for convenience in the judgment (and this post) as a further article). A related data protection claim was withdrawn on the basis that it did not add anything of substance to the libel claim.

The natural and ordinary meaning of the articles was determined at a preliminary issues trial. The meaning of the first article was found to be as follows:

It was common ground between the parties that, save in respect of one discrete allegation, the further articles did not go beyond the meaning of the first article.

The Guardian accepted that the requirement for a publication to cause or be likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant, as set down in section 1 of the Defamation Act, was met in respect of the first article, but disputed at trial that it was met for the further articles. The Guardian also sought to rely at trial on the defences of truth (under section 2) and public interest (under section 4) in respect of all articles.

Decision

The High Court (Mrs Justice Steyn DBE) dismissed the claim.

Serious harm: The claimant argued that, given it was not disputed that the serious harm threshold was met in respect of the first article, he did not need to establish that the further articles separately met the threshold. The court disagreed, noting that the law is clear that the serious harm test must be met in respect of each statement individually, not cumulatively. The deficiencies in the claimant's pleading in this regard meant that he failed to satisfy the section 1 requirement for the further articles.

Defence of truth: Following a detailed account of the evidence heard at trial (running to over 700 paragraphs of the judgment), the Court held that the meaning of the articles was substantially true.

Publication in the public interest: The court held that the defence of public interest was made out in respect of the first article (which was the focus for this defence). There were three questions to be addressed in this regard:

1. Was the statement complained of on a matter of public interest, or did it form part of such a statement?
2. If so, did the defendant believe that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest?
3. If so, was that belief reasonable?

Considering this three-limb test, the court was satisfied that the answer to the first question was 'yes'. The court found that the first article was on matters of public interest, specifically, the article concerned the use by a successful male public figure in the film and television industry of his power and status to subject women in the industry to sexual harassment and abuse. It also concerned BAFTA's decision to make an award to the claimant after it had received allegations of such conduct and the failure of the industry to prevent such conduct. The court rejected the claimant's arguments that involvement in "non-crimes" that could result in "trial by media", or in matters where the police have declined to investigate, are not matters of public interest.

Secondly, the court found that the decision to publish was based on an honest belief that publication was in the public interest. The court heard evidence on the investigation carried out by the Guardian and the internal meetings held to discuss the public interest in publishing.

Finally, the court considered in detail what it found to be the "only real question in respect of the public interest defence", which was whether the belief that publication was in the public interest was reasonable. The court found it to be "undoubtedly reasonable" after hearing evidence on the process followed by the Guardian prior to publication. The court had regard to matters such as:

• the Guardian's choice of experienced personnel to work on the investigation and publication, which included the Guardian's Head of Investigations, who acted as the main liaison for the senior editors, and the Guardian's editorial legal team as well as reporters with previous experience in investigating and reporting on sensitive matters of sexual harassment and abuse of power. The court found that the Guardian's "choice of experienced personnel to work on [the] investigation and publication [could not] sensibly be criticised";
• the steps taken by the Guardian's journalists to investigate, stress-test, and verify the credibility of their source material, including additional information provided by Mr Clarke in his reply. The court observed that the Guardian's sources included all of the women, whether named or pseudonymised, whose accounts of sexual harassment, sexual assault, inappropriate sexual remarks, bullying and professional misconduct were published in the first article. The court was ultimately satisfied that the "steps taken by the Guardian to verify and corroborate the matters published in the first article were reasonable in the circumstances";
• the time afforded to the claimant to reply, with around three weekdays in total being found to be reasonable in the circumstances of this case (where the allegations all concerned matters within the claimant's direct knowledge, the claimant had been aware of the investigation for at least a fortnight and there was a reasonable concern that the claimant might use additional time to put pressure on sources to retract their accounts or their consent to be named); and
• the presentation and tone of the article. The claimant's statement for publication was included high up in the article and each allegation was laid out individually in parallel with the claimant's response to provide balance. The Guardian excluded from publication matters which they considered were properly matters of the private lives of the claimant, his professional associates and his family. Further, the factual accounts of the Guardian's sources were presented in "a measured and accurate way", without being "exaggerated or sensationalised".

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.