High Court dismissed Noel Clarke's libel claim, finding the Guardian's allegations true and upholding truth and public interest defences. Women's groups welcomed the judgment as a victory for victims, press freedom and public interest reporting, noting wealthy abusive men often use injunctions, NDAs and defamation threats to silence victims. Clarke claimed the allegations were false and part of an unlawful conspiracy. During a five-week civil trial, 26 witnesses described bullying and professional and sexual misconduct. Mrs Justice Steyn rejected Clarke's claims, found the Guardian proved both defences, and described Clarke as not a credible or reliable witness. Legal and advocacy figures called the ruling a landmark for survivors.
Clarke claimed the allegations published by the Guardian after an investigation were false and he had been the victim of an unlawful conspiracy. During the five-week civil case, 26 witnesses gave evidence against him, detailing allegations of bullying and professional and sexual misconduct. On Friday, Mrs Justice Steyn rejected Clarke's claims, ruling the Guardian had proved both its defences: truth and public interest.
Noel Clarke could easily have avoided being named as a sexual predator accused of harassing women. All he had to do was not act in ways that constitute sexual harassment, said Karen Ingala Smith, former chief executive of domestic and sexual violence charity nia. Clarke now adds himself to the list of wealthy abusive men who have tried and failed to use the law to minimise, hide or deny their behaviour, she added.
Collection
[
|
...
]