Noel Clarke's legal battle against Guardian News & Media

High Court rules on disclosure and redaction in media case

The High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, Media and Communications List, recently addressed significant issues concerning disclosure and redaction in the case of Noel Anthony Clarke vs Guardian News & Media Ltd. The case, presided over by Mrs. Justice Steyn, involved two key applications brought by the claimant, Noel Clarke, against the defendant, Guardian News & Media Ltd.

Clarke's first application sought an order for the defendant to disclose professional and certified transcripts of audio files contained in its disclosure. This application, known as the 'transcripts application,' was accompanied by a second request for the removal of certain redactions that Clarke argued fell outside the protections of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 and the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

The court heard that the defendant's standard disclosure included 142 audio files, of which 60 were provided for inspection. The remaining files were withheld under section 10 of the 1981 Act. Clarke's legal team argued that the transcripts provided were of poor quality, as they were generated by artificial intelligence software, and sought certified transcripts for accuracy.

Mrs. Justice Steyn ruled against Clarke's transcripts application, stating that the defendant was not obligated to obtain professional transcriptions for litigation purposes. The judge further noted that the certified transcripts, obtained by the defendant, were not privileged and could be subject to specific disclosure under CPR 31.12.1.

However, the court found no compelling reason to order the disclosure of the certified transcripts, as Clarke's team failed to demonstrate their necessity for the fair disposal of the trial. The judge highlighted the lack of explanation regarding the materiality of the transcripts to the issues at hand and the potential disruption to the trial process.

Regarding the redactions application, the court examined Clarke's request for the removal of redactions applied by the defendant. The defendant contended that these redactions were necessary to protect confidential journalistic sources under section 10 of the 1981 Act. Mrs. Justice Steyn upheld the defendant's position, emphasizing the importance of source protection in maintaining press freedom.

The court concluded that Clarke's application did not convincingly establish the necessity for overriding the public interest in source protection. The judge also noted the late timing of the application, which could have prejudiced the defendant's trial preparations.

This case underscores the complexities involved in balancing the interests of justice with the protection of journalistic sources and the challenges faced by claimants in media-related litigation.

Learn More

For more information on media law, see BeCivil's guide to Film and Media Law.