Noel Anthony Clarke v Guardian News & Media Limited

Meaning in a libel claim is determined holistically by asking what the hypothetical reasonable reader would understand the publication to convey. The repetition rule remains applicable where a publication reports allegations made by others, but it does not impose an artificial starting point that the claimant is guilty. The effect of denials depends on their prominence, detail and presentation, considered with the publication as a whole. A report may therefore convey strong grounds to believe misconduct despite prominent denials, without conveying guilt as a fact. The Chase levels are useful shorthand within a spectrum of meanings. The court must also determine whether words convey fact or opinion as part of the overall meaning exercise. Third-party reactions do not ordinarily create additional meanings unless they imply an independent and concluded finding.

Noel Anthony Clarke brought claims in libel and under the Data Protection Act 2018 and the General Data Protection Regulation concerning eight Guardian articles reporting allegations of sexual harassment, bullying and related misconduct.

The court tried preliminary issues directed by Murray J concerning the natural and ordinary meaning of each publication, whether the meanings were defamatory, and whether the publications conveyed fact or opinion. The parties agreed that the articles were to be assessed individually and that the first seven were defamatory, subject principally to disagreement about the level of defamatory meaning.

1. Approach to meaning. The repetition rule applies to reports of third-party allegations. Such reporting ordinarily conveys the underlying allegation rather than merely the fact that an allegation was made. However, the claimant’s proposed method of treating guilt as a starting point and then searching for an antidote was artificial and mechanistic. The publication must be read as a whole, applying the Koutsogiannis principles.
2. Denials and context. A denial may reduce the defamatory sting, depending on how it is presented. The denials in the first seven articles were prominent, detailed and conscientious, so a reasonable reader would take them into account. They did not, however, reduce the meaning to mere suspicion. The number of apparently independent complainants and the articles’ detail and presentation conveyed strong grounds to believe that the claimant was guilty of the alleged conduct.
3. Specific features. The phrase “sexual predator” did not alter the overall meaning of the first article. The reported decisions of BAFTA and broadcasters were interim reactions to allegations and did not convey that an independent investigation had established either their truth or falsity.
4. Eighth article. The eighth article conveyed only grounds to investigate allegations. Reporting that the police had decided not to investigate, coupled with the expressed dismay at that decision, did not convey reasonable grounds to suspect guilt but did convey that an investigation was warranted.
5. Outcome. The first seven articles conveyed meanings that there were strong grounds to believe the claimant had engaged in the specified forms of sexual harassment, bullying and related misconduct. The eighth conveyed grounds to investigate allegations of groping, harassment and bullying. Each meaning was defamatory at common law and each publication conveyed statements of fact rather than opinion. Directions were made for a case management conference and consequential amendments to the statements of case.