[ad_1]
The allegations of sexual misconduct against Nawil Clark, published in the Guardian actor “victim” of the media “cleansing” after the emergence of Mito, have heard the Supreme Court.
But a lawyer for the newspaper said that its investigation in the actor was “cautious and comprehensive” with information “from a wide range of sources with direct evidence of misconduct.
Clark, 49, claimed that there is a conspiracy for people with financial and personal grudges against him who designed his fall because they could not see him getting the BAFTA award.
He is the Guardian News and Media (GNM) for seven articles and podcasts, including an article from April 2021 who said 20 women know a professional Clark who made allegations of sexual misconduct.
Clark deny these allegations, while GNM defends its reports as real and in the public interest.
Philip Williams, who represents Clark, told a hearing in the Supreme Court on Friday that his client had become a “scapegoat” and was “an easy goal” because he was at the height of his success when he sought the media industry “enthusiastically to correct itself” after the Mito movement.
Williams said that the Guardian witnesses were “revenge” on Clark and a “weapon” of their complaints against him.
He said in the written requests: “A handful of people were planning and carrying out their scheme from 2019 to achieve the fall of Mr. Clark, based on glass hatred, professional jealousy, classical classics and malicious racist bias.”
The lawyer also criticized the trustee investigation, saying that the newspaper “clearly failed to do its work properly.”
He said that the correspondents failed to investigate the relevant expected clients, and did not verify some assurances, and allowed “pollution” of their sources of sources by asking leadership questions and deleting the relevant chat messages with the defamation experience.
He said: “The defendant was aware of the absolute malice of many mediators and its sources, with a clear ax for grinding, and he should have treated such mediators and sources of lies and contradictions with great caution, so that the publication was supposed to be in doubt.”
Williams asked the court to find the claim successful, saying that the Guardian reports caused serious harm to the Clark profession, with “continuous hostile reactions via the Internet and in public discourse.”
Watch witnesses “careful, consider and honest”
For GNM, Gavin Millar Kc told GNM that there is no “piece of evidence” to support Clark’s demand for conspiracy, describing it as “somewhat illogical speculation.”
He said that Clark has a “very clear motive for lying” because he “stands up to a great loss.”
Lawyer described the Guardian witnesses as “cautious, they are considered honest and honest” and that many of them for Clark did not have direct knowledge of the allegations and therefore their evidence should not be given much.
In written requests, Milar said that Clark “used his authority to avoid colleagues and harass females” over 15 years.
Milar told the court that people disappear people, participated in inappropriate behavior and comments by sexual communication, gave unwanted kissing, touching or touching, taking clear photos and videos without approval and participation in professional misconduct.
The lawyer added: “The great truth of each of these elements is easily presented through the evidence that was heard in this trial.
“In fact, it will be unnecessary for the court to accept the majority of this evidence for defending the truth.”
Milar asked the court to refuse to claim Clark and finds that the reports were correct and in the public interest.
He said: “This was an accurate and comprehensive investigation by a conscience Guardian Journalists who were aware of the potential dangers.
“They have received information from a wide range of sources with direct evidence of misconduct, and in each case they looked carefully and tested the information provided, and chose to publish the information they believed was only credible.”
The trial concluded, before Mrs. Judge Stein, on Friday with a written ruling expected at a later time.
Email piged@pressgazette.co.uk To refer to errors, give the story tips or send a message to publish on the “Letters Page” blog
