Catherine Vinner, editor-in-chief Guardiansaid there is “a very clear public interest” in reporting allegations of misconduct against Noel Clark after his Honorary BAFTA victory in 2021.
Viner said he was responsible for everything the newspapers make public, and made the decision to publish Clark’s investigation with that ability.
Clark is suing the newspaper publishers Guardian News and Media (GNM). He sues more than seven articles and podcasts. This includes articles from April 2021, which Clark has said by 20 women who have professionally advanced allegations of fraud.
Clark denied the allegations and said that several people who made the allegations were part of a conspiracy to slander him.
Publishers defend the report as both true and in the public interest.
Vinner is Paul Lewis. GuardianThe investigator told her at a meeting on April 12, 2021 that BAFTA was notified of allegations about Clark and awarded him an outstanding British contribution to the Film Awards.
(A letter to the Chairman and CEO BAFTA member on April 30, 2021 stated: “After the announcement, BAFTA received an anonymous email of allegations in connection with Noel Clark. These were either interim or second accounts or second accounts. Guardian, this award would have been suspended soon.
Viner continued. “It was clear to me at that stage. When I spoke to Paul in the last few days, I think Clark’s actions were like a secret that was opened up in the British film and television industry.
“Before we began our research, it was clear that individuals were galvanized to speak to each other.”
Vinner told the court that he knew Clark strongly denied the claim, adding that he thought it was appropriate to give him “a reasonable but not a long period of time to comment.”
She continued to submit in writing. “I thought there was a very clear public interest in exposing allegations of fraud in the context that the individual in question recently praised and gave them even more empowerment through a special award made by the BAFTA.
“In light of the long period in which the allegations were made, it was believed that this endorsement of Mr. Clark and his integration of influence in the British film and television industry would allow us to continue or escalate any related action that is potentially immunity.
“But even if the timing of the awards had no effect on the timing of publication, we probably only made it public later anyway.”
Viner also said that Clarke’s position was clearly presented and highly in the article and explained in more detail.
She added that she thought the study was “well placed to assess the reliability and importance of the findings.”
Philip Williams, who represents Clark, asked Vinner if it was correct that she wasn’t “very” in her investigation.
She replied: “I think I’m hoping that the reporter will report, the editor will do the editing and they will do the editor to escalate it to me. That’s what happened in this case.”
She added that it is her “work to take a really big step and then remove the emotions” and to determine whether the story is in the public interest.
Clark’s lawyers say the plot that they “weak” the defense of the public interest.
In his written submission, Williams stated: “At the very least, the defendant and his journalists were clearly aware of the plot, so they fell into a common design, the best, and they actively conspired with the conspirators and their companions to publish a serious, honorable article against the claimant.”
The hearing before Judge Steyn is expected to conclude a written decision this month at a later date.
(TagStoTRASSLATE) UK/Ireland
