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

Introduction

The well-known actor, screenwriter, producer and director, Noel Clarke, brings this action for libel in respect of eight articles published by the Guardian. The general subject-matter of the publications is indicated by the headline to the first article complained of: “Sexual predator: actor Noel Clarke accused of groping, harassment and bullying by 20 women”.

Mr Clarke rose to prominence with a recurring role as “Mickey Smith” in the Doctor Who television series and starring roles in the films Kidulthood, Adulthood and Brotherhood, which he also wrote, and, for the two later films, directed. In February 2009, Mr Clarke received the Orange Rising Star Award from the British Academy of Film and Television Arts (‘BAFTA’). In 2013, he appeared in Star Trek Into Darkness. By 2021, Mr Clarke had starred in, among other productions, three seasons of Bulletproof, a hit television series on Sky One, which he created, wrote and executively produced with his co-star, Ashley Walters. On 10 April 2021, he was awarded the prestigious prize for Outstanding British Contribution to Cinema by BAFTA, but that award and his BAFTA membership were suspended immediately following publication on 29 April 2021 of the first article.

The claim is brought against Guardian News and Media Limited (‘the Guardian’) which is the owner and publisher of the Guardian newspaper, the Guardian’s website (at www.theguardian.com) and the Guardian app.

The principal issues on which I heard evidence and submissions over the course of the six-week trial are, first, whether the Guardian has shown that the meaning of each of the articles is substantially true and so established the statutory defence of truth to the libel claim pursuant to s.2 of the Defamation Act 2013 (‘the 2013 Act’). And, secondly, whether the Guardian has shown (a) that each of the articles was, or formed part of, a statement on a matter of public interest, (b) that those who made the decisions to publish honestly believed it was in the public interest to do so; and (c) that it was objectively reasonable in all the circumstances for the Guardian to believe that publication was in the public interest, so as to establish the statutory defence of publication on a matter of public interest pursuant to s.4 of the 2013 Act. The Guardian relies on both defences, but establishing either one would be a complete answer to the claim.

There is also an issue, in respect of the second to eighth articles, whether the “serious harm” threshold for actionability in s.1 of the 2013 Act is satisfied. That issue does not arise in respect of the first article which the Guardian admits has caused (or is likely to cause) serious harm to Mr Clarke’s reputation.

The Articles and their Meanings

The eight articles complained of (‘the Articles’) are:

Each of the Articles was published in hard copy, online and on the app, save for the second article and the Podcast which were published only online. The text of the Articles is set out in Appendix 1 to the judgment of Johnson J given following the trial of preliminary issues as to meaning: Clarke v Guardian News & Media Ltd [2023] EWHC 2734 (KB).

The natural and ordinary meanings of the Articles were determined by Johnson J as follows:

Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the order of Johnson J dated 1 November 2023 establish that the words complained of are defamatory of the Claimant at common law, and in each case they are statements of fact.

In respect of both the truth defence and the public interest defence, the parties have focused on the first article. It is common ground that the meanings of the second to eighth articles do not go beyond the meaning of the first article, save to the extent that the second half of the meaning of the fourth article raises a discrete allegation.