Mrs Justice Steyn dismissed Noel Clarke's libel claim and found strong grounds to believe Clarke is a serial abuser of women. Testimony from 26 witnesses led to findings of harassment, bullying and abuse of power over many years. Some of Clarke's evidence was accepted, but he was found neither credible nor reliable. Guardian journalists were careful, offered Clarke reasonable opportunity to respond, and fairly presented his denials. The material was judged plainly matters of public interest and the journalism was responsible, corroborated, measured, accurate and balanced. The case exposes industry complicity and structures that enabled abuse and silenced women until #MeToo.
Mrs Justice Steyn's judgment is about power and complicity as well as the failure to protect vulnerable people. In her verdict, she agreed with the Guardian that there were strong grounds to believe that [Clarke] is a serial abuser of women. The court heard testimony from 26 witnesses before concluding that Clarke had engaged in harassment, bullying and abuse of power over many years. The judge accepted some of his evidence, but found him to be neither credible or reliable.
The Guardian's journalists, by contrast, were meticulous and gave Clarke reasonable opportunity to respond as well as fairly presenting his denials. Without women speaking up, Clarke would never have been exposed. The judge rightly agreed that these were plainly matters of public interest. But in law it is not enough for an editor to say that a story is important. It must also demonstrate responsible journalism: it must have careful corroboration and fair presentation, and not be given to sensationalism.
Collection
[
|
...
]