Our Senior Partner Clive Coleman comments on the Noel Clarke libel judgement on BBC Radio 4

Our Senior Partner and former BBC Legal Correspondent Clive Coleman returned to the BBC last week, appearing on Radio 4’s ‘The Media Show’. Clive spoke to presenter Ros Atkins following the actor Noel Clarke’s failed libel action against the Guardian newspaper which had published allegations of bullying and sexual misconduct.

Ros first interviewed Shirin Kale, the journalist who, along with her colleague Lucy Osborne, broke and worked on the story. He then turned to Clive to explain the mechanics of a libel trial and what the Guardian had to prove in order to defeat the claim brought by Noel Clarke.

Clive explained the highly unusual ‘reverse burden of proof’ that operates in defamation claims. It meant that in this case it was the Guardian, the defendant, that had to prove what it published was ‘substantially true’ and in the public interest. In other civil claims it is always the claimant who bears the burden of proof and must prove its case.

The phrase ‘substantially true’, which can sound odd in a case involving the most serious of allegations affecting a person’s reputation, was unpicked. Clive explained that it meant that the bar for defendants is to prove that ‘the nub, the gist of what was printed was true, not every micro element or every word’. Clive also explained that even if the Guardian had failed to prove that what it had published about Noel Clarke was substantially true, it would have won the case on its second defence, i.e. that the articles about Noel Clarke were published in the public interest. ‘Public interest’ did not mean simply, ‘what is interesting to the public’, but had to be on a matter of genuine public concern such as the abuse of power in the media industry. It also involves ‘reasonable belief’ on the part of the publisher. Here, the judge Mrs Justice Steyn found that the Guardian’s editor in chief Kathryn Viner, and other editorial staff had reasonably believed that the paper was publishing on matters public interest.

Looking forward at the significance and effect of the ruling, Clive commented that it would be a beacon for journalists and publishers. If they have carried out a meticulous investigation, with multiple complainants, kept assiduous records and offered the subject of their articles the opportunity to comment on all aspects of the allegations, they should have confidence in publishing. A shot in the arm for thorough and rigorous investigative reporting, and as Clive said, if the news organisation gets the process right, ‘it is a very brave person who rolls the dice and tries to sue you for defamation’

Click here to listen to Clive’s interview in full (from 8:20).