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

Also on 27 February 2025, Mr Clarke filed an application for an order requiring the Guardian to remove redactions which fall outside the protections afforded by the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, and which either fall outside section 10 of the 1981 Act or to which the interests of justice exception in that provision applies. His application, as limited by reference to Mr Khan’s evidence and his Counsel’s submissions, was for the removal of any redactions made in respect of 19 named individuals across the whole of the Guardian’s disclosure (the vast majority of which he had had since 3 October 2024).

The Guardian’s evidence made clear, first, that no redactions had been made pursuant to the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 and, secondly, that “Where a source’s contribution to the articles had been published by reference to their true name, they were not treated as a confidential source in relation to that information”. No redactions were applied to documents to protect sources who had “waived their right to confidentiality” in relation to the relevant material.

I heard the application on the second day of the trial and refused it for the reasons given in my ex tempore judgment the following morning: Clarke v Guardian [2025] EWHC 550 (KB), [1]-[2] and [39]-[59].