take a step aside to bring you some
other breaking news. The actor no Clark
has lost his liel claim against the
Guardian newspaper. He was suing the
Guardian over articles and a podcast,
including one which claimed 20 women had
complained about his conduct. He was
suspended from BAFTA and dropped from
various productions in light of the
allegations. Arts and Entertainment
correspondent Katy Spencer is here with
us now. What more can he tell us?
>> Uh he has lost his high court liel case
is the the the big thing that we now
know. He'd been seeking 70 million
pounds in damages. Um this all emerged
after in in 2021 uh just a few weeks
after he was given BAFTA's outstanding
contribution to cinema. Uh these claims
emerged. The Guardian published its
first article claiming that there were
uh various um allegations of of women
that had approached them claiming that
he um had behaved badly, claims of
sexual misconduct. Um he basically after
that uh BAFTA canceled his membership.
He was unable to work again because of
these claims. the the Guardian went on
to publish a further uh eight more
pieces uh delving into the story itself.
Um in 2022, police had actually said
that there would be no criminal
investigation over this and I think that
in part prompted then uh null clark to
to decide to take the guardian to court.
Throughout this he has denied any
wrongdoing in the case itself. When he
went to court, he spoke about believing
that um he felt that yes, he could
behave badly at times, but a lot of what
went on in his mind was uh banter and
had been sort of uh misinterpreted by
the the women that had had made claims
against him. But the judge has found
that actually the guardian was right to
publish on the grounds of um truth and
of uh this being in the public interest.
Uh they've if you look at the judgment
which we are at the moment they say the
judge says the first article there are
strong grounds to believe that the
claimant is a serial abuser of woman
women and that he has over 15 years used
his power to prey on and harass and
sometimes bully female colleagues. Of
the second article it says again there
are strong grounds to believe that null
Clark has engaged in sexual harassment
and the bullying of women. The third
article it says again strong grounds to
believe that the claimant has engaged in
verbal abuse, bullying, sexual
harassment. Um and it goes on that all
of the articles that the guardian put
out the judge has found uh in that there
are grounds of them to to justify
publishing those allegations that
there's strong grounds that he was
involved in uh groping, harassment,
bullying, all of the things that the
Guardian went ahead and published. null.
Clark on his part, he claimed that he
was uh made a scope scapegoat. He he in
his argument through his lawyers, he
spoke about the fact that uh these
claims had come off the back of the me
too movement and that he felt that it
was the industry zealously trying to
correct himself and that he was a victim
of really the time that these uh
allegations were published. But the
judge clearly finding that the Guardian
was right to go ahead and uh publish the
articles as they did. We're just hearing
from Katherine Viner, editor and chief
of Guarding News and Media. Uh we
welcome the decision of the high court
today in a judgment handed down by Mrs.
Justice Stein in the case of Clark
versus Guarding News and Media. The
judge ruled in extremely clear language
that the Guardian's reporting was
substantially true and our belief that
the reporting was in the public interest
was undoubtedly reasonable. This
judgment is a deserved victory for those
women who suffered because of the
behavior of N. Clark. Going to court is
difficult and stressful. Yet more than
20 women agreed to testify in the high
court, refusing to be bullied or
intimidated. This is a landmark judgment
for Guardian journalism and for
investigative journalism in Britain.
Important to fight this case, deeply
researched by some of our best reporters
who work diligently and responsibly.
Judgment is clear. The investigation was
thorough and fair, a template for public
interest journalism. I hope today will
give encouragement to other women in
similar situations who have been too
fearful to raise their voices for fear
of consequences. That's Katherine Viner,
editor-inchief of Guarding News.
>> And I've just had through an official
statement from null Clark. Uh his
response is that today's result is
disappointing. For almost 5 years, I
have fought against a powerful media
outlet and its extensive legal teams
over inaccurate and damaging reporting.
You should say the judge disagrees on
that. they found in the Guardian favor.
Um, these stories started via anonymous
emails portraying me as a monster to
attract attention and outrage. The goal
was to damage my career and they
succeeded. I have never claimed to be
perfect, but I'm not the person
described in these articles. Overnight,
I lost everything. The media outlet
didn't just ruin my life, they ripped
through my families. Also, the decision
today does not change the fact that
inaccuracies were published. uh while
they may have won in court, they have
lost the trust that journalism depends
on. Well, I I would say that perhaps the
opposite is the case in that the the
judge in this case has uh actually found
that there was a public interest and
that these uh the claims that were made
in these articles were were
substantially on the grounds of truth.
They they appear to be true
>> and the the Guardian understandably it
is their main and leading story on their
website at the moment. and and they note
that they relied on testimony from
almost 30 people and as was also noted
by Katherine Ber there in that statement
18 to 20 of whom gave accounts in court.
>> Yeah. And we should say actually they
the women that were uh taken to uh took
to the stand and that came to uh speak
on the Guardian's behalf when this case
went to court. They were they were given
a real sort of grilling by the lawyers
acting for null clar. They're accused of
being sort of flirts and liars. Um, and
it did take a lot of um, bravery really
for them to publicly stand up there and
detail some of the accounts that they um
that they had of the interactions that
they had with null Clark. Um, I actually
did a couple of weeks ago get to sit
down and talk to Lucy Osborne and
Shireen Kale who were the two
journalists that actually broke this
story. Um it has been obviously years
worth of legal wrangling to um prove
that they were right in the article that
that and releasing it in the first
place. They uh thoroughly thoroughly
researched this. They said they they
made sure that they had sources upon
sources and were fact-checking that the
stories that they had were correct. Um
should shall we hear a little bit of the
interview that I I had with them?
>> I hope that um I think that this is not
a problem that's going to go away. I
think that this is very much still this
kind of behavior very much still happens
in the TV and film industry and other
industries. So I do hope that this
judgment gives other women confidence to
speak out about what they've
experienced.
>> It strikes me that whilst a judgment is
delivered, the case continues in many
respects. Firstly, Clark, who says his
entire career has been destroyed, will
face some pretty hefty legal bills and
potentially also having to pay for the
Guardians legal bill as well. But the
impact of the actions and the
allegations on the women at the center
of this, that doesn't finish, those
impacts don't finish just because
there's been a judgment handed down in
the favor of the Guardian. And so, you
know, this story, whilst the legal
element might be over, the impact of it
continues forever. And you have to think
while uh null Clark would argue that
there he did nothing criminally wrong in
his eyes, the point is and the
justification for bringing a story like
this to print is because he was such a
hugely influential figure within film
and the way that he was enabled and
allowed to behave sort of with impunity
but with from the people that were
around around him would not be tolerated
within any other workplace. If you read
some of the detail of the um journalists
article that various articles that they
wrote detailing some of the the behavior
that he he carried out was hugely taking
advantage of his position. People in
very junior um roles on his sets. He
would be um in a harassing way sort of
pressing them up against uh walls and
what have you. and and it really I think
while it might not have been uh behavior
deemed to be criminal within the
police's eyes certainly I think uh well
in the guardian have been proven right
really in the fact that the judge has
deemed that on the grounds of truth and
public interest it was right for them to
publish these claims against null club
>> breaking uh breaking news this hour
appreciate it we'll bring you plenty
more on this story on the Sky News
website and Sky News app as it develops
I'm sure there'll be plenty more
reaction and we'll bring it to you as
soon as we get It