Lessons from the Noel Clarke Libel Trial: Power, Responsibility, and the Onus to Object
The Royal Courts of Justice, London
The High Court’s judgment in Noel Clarke’s libel case against The Guardian marks a significant moment for the media industry and beyond. While much of the coverage has focused on the outcome itself – that Clarke lost his claim – the judge’s findings go further, offering a stark analysis of how power imbalances shape workplace dynamics, and how responsibility for misconduct is often wrongly shifted onto those with less power.
Mrs Justice Steyn highlighted Clarke’s apparent belief that his behaviour was harmless because women could, in his words, “turn him down.” He testified that he had been rejected “a million times” and saw this as evidence that no harm was done. The judge rejected this framing. She emphasised that Clarke’s perspective failed to acknowledge the inherent pressure created by his position as a director, producer, or senior figure on projects where others – often younger women in more vulnerable roles – depended on him for professional opportunities.
This is an important point. The idea that the onus rests with the person being targeted to object, resist, or raise a complaint is not just unfair, it is ethically indefensible. It disregards the structural realities of hierarchy, career dependence, and the personal risk of speaking up. When the person making an advance holds power over casting, contracts, or professional reputation, the freedom to say “no” is not real freedom at all.
The judgment underscores how conduct framed by the perpetrator as “cheeky” or “naughty” can in fact be calculated, deliberate, and deeply damaging. What might be excused as banter or light-hearted teasing can have serious consequences, particularly when individuals feel they cannot safely challenge the behaviour without risking their livelihood. In one example, the court found that an actor was required to film a sex scene naked from the waist down when this was unnecessary, and that Clarke took advantage of the situation. This illustrates how professional contexts can be exploited in ways that blur boundaries and leave the less powerful person compromised.
The broader lesson is that responsibility must rest with those who hold power. It is not enough for them to say that others were free to object or that no objection was made. Ethical practice requires an active awareness of how power shapes interaction, consent, and the choices people feel able to make. To assume that silence implies consent, or that a lack of resistance justifies behaviour, is to ignore the very real constraints faced by those in subordinate positions.
For the media industry, where creative hierarchies are sharp and career opportunities precarious, this judgment is a call to confront the culture of minimising or excusing misconduct. Organisations must not only set clear standards of professional behaviour, but also acknowledge how power can distort relationships and create pressure that is invisible to those at the top.
At its heart, the case illustrates that misconduct often persists not because targets fail to speak out, but because systems place the burden of objection on them rather than holding those in power to account. Shifting that burden – from the vulnerable to the powerful – is essential if workplaces are to become safer, fairer, and genuinely respectful.
Supporting Organisations Through These Challenges
Navigating cases where power imbalances are at play requires both sensitivity and expertise. Our team brings extensive experience investigating these situations and helping organisations respond with clarity and fairness. Alongside our investigation services, we provide tailored training programmes that equip staff to recognise and manage these dynamics, strengthening internal processes and building cultures where misconduct is addressed properly and those affected are supported.
Contact us to discuss how EthicsVision can support your organisation.
Blog cover photo attribution: Noel Clarke by Ibsan73, licensed under CC BY 2.0
