QB-2022-001397 - [2025] EWHC 2193 (KB)

Everyone at the meetings on 27 and 29 April 2024, was “cognisant of the seriousness of publishing these sorts of allegations” (as Mr Gibson put it) and they took the responsibility very seriously. The editorial team decided to run a long article to enable them to tell the story by laying out the allegations individually, in each case, in parallel with Mr Clarke’s response.

Mr Clarke’s statement for publication was included high up in the article. The positioning of Mr Clarke’s individual responses to each allegation provides balance and enables the reader to form their own view of the credibility and significance of the Guardian’s findings. The Guardian excluded from publication matters which they considered were properly matters of the private lives of Mr Clarke, his professional associates and his family.

I agree with Ms Viner that the factual accounts of the Guardian’s sources are presented in “a measured and accurate way”, without being “exaggerated or sensationalised”.

Public Interest Defence: Conclusion

I conclude that the Guardian has succeeded in establishing that the first article was published on a matter of public interest. Ms Viner made the decision to publish and she honestly believed (along with all of the Guardian’s editorial witnesses, as well as the reporters) that publication was in the public interest. For the reasons I have given, that belief was undoubtedly reasonable. Accordingly, the s.4 defence to the libel claim also succeeds.

The Guardian has succeeded in establishing both truth and public interest defences to the libel claim. In addition, in respect of the second to eighth articles, the serious harm requirement was not met. The data protection claim was withdrawn. Accordingly, Mr Clarke’s libel and data protection claims against the Guardian are dismissed.