Photo: David Levene/The Guardian
The UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition welcomes the High Court’s judgement that found in favour of The Guardian in relation to the legal action brought by the actor, producer and filmmaker, Noel Clarke. This is an important judgment in favour of public interest journalism. On Friday 22 August, the judgment from Mrs Justice Steyn stated that “The Guardian has succeeded in establishing both truth and public interest defences to the libel claim.” It also confirmed that, “in respect of the second to eighth articles, the serious harm requirement was not met.” As the data protection claim had been withdrawn, the judge dismissed the claim against The Guardian.
The legal action stemmed from seven articles and a podcast episode published by The Guardian between April and May 2021 that reported on the testimony of 20 women who accused Clarke of “sexual harassment, unwanted touching or groping, sexually inappropriate behaviour and comments on set, professional misconduct, taking and sharing sexually explicit pictures and videos without consent, and bullying between 2004 and 2019.” These are issues of vital public interest. No one should be immune from scrutiny. That Clarke responded to this reporting through costly legal action demonstrates a significant threat to free expression and the public’s right to know.
Throughout the legal action, a number of attempts were made to draw out proceedings and increase the liability faced by the defendants, including potential criminal liability for perverting the course of justice. This was rejected by Mrs Justice Steyn in an earlier hearing, who stated that in relation to the “extremely serious allegation” that The Guardian’s journalists had fabricated evidence, “such a grave allegation should not have been made and publicly aired without foundation.” The Coalition is also deeply alarmed by legal threats made against a witness during proceedings. On 5 November 2024, lawyers instructed by Clarke sent a letter to an accuser, identified in court as Imogen, claiming that her allegations were “grounds for legal action and criminal investigation”. The judgment outlined how Imogen found this threat to be “terrifying”. While Clarke admitted in court that the letter was “a little harsh”, we are worried about this tactic as it does little to rebut the allegations in court, instead appearing to intimidate her into silence.
Clarke has asserted that he is the victim of an “unlawful conspiracy”. His lawyer told the court that the “[c]omplainants were ‘carefully curated’, and encouraged to cooperate with one another in order to create and embellish their complaints.” While the judgment stated that this allegation “lacked any proper foundation”, this could have wider implications on the entire field of journalism. If legal threats can be brought against journalists, as well as their sources, as though they are part of a singular conspiracy, this could threaten the core tenet of journalism – the ability to protect journalistic sources and report on the information they share. If sources are dissuaded from coming forward due to the fear of legal threats, the groundwater that sustains public interest journalism dries up.
The UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition has long documented the use of abusive legal actions to stifle public interest reporting and dissuade sources coming forward. As a result, the vindication of The Guardian’s reporting sends a powerful signal but also a message of caution. While the media outlet was able to successfully defend its journalism, this came after years of pre-litigation processes and negotiations, which exerted a significant toll on The Guardian and its journalists. Without meaningful anti-SLAPP protections that can level the playing field and make sure the justice system serves everyone equally, there are few structural protections to prevent this happening again. For that reason we need a universal anti-SLAPP law without delay.