A High Court hearing heard that the Guardian newspaper's investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against Noel Clarke had no pre-determined outcome.
Lucy Osborne, an investigative correspondent for the Guardian and co-author of the report that triggered Clarke's libel claim, testified on the second day of the case. She defended the publication's reporting against claims by Clarke's barrister, Philip Williams, that the accounts of alleged victims contained significant inconsistencies or that a conspiracy existed to bring down the actor.
Osborne denied Williams' assertions, stating that any concerns about the credibility of the allegations or sources would have been immediately flagged to the Guardian's head of investigations, Paul Lewis. She testified, "There was no agenda. We conducted a thorough investigation, and if I had any doubts about the credibility of the allegations or sources, I would have raised them with Paul Lewis. I wouldn't have wanted to publish anything prematurely."
Osborne maintained an open-minded approach throughout the investigation, collecting information from numerous sources, a number too extensive to detail in her witness statement.
"It is absolutely not in my interest to publish something before we were ready to do so," Osborne stated in court.
Williams questioned Osborne about aspects of the alleged victims' behavior, suggesting that certain actions, such as those of Gina Powell, who worked with Clarke at Unstoppable Productions and alleges sexual assault and abusive behavior, should have raised red flags. Williams argued that Osborne should have investigated Powell's alleged sexually suggestive comments and the sending of pornography to Clarke.
Osborne responded that Powell, without prompting, had described the sexually charged environment of her workplace and the pressure to conform to Clarke's expectations.
Osborne described Powell as a "strong and inspiring woman" for coming forward.
Williams also questioned Osborne regarding another witness, Evelyn (not her real name), who alleged that Clarke had taken a picture of her underwear while she was dancing and attempted to show it to colleagues. Williams suggested that Evelyn was wearing a minidress at the time. Osborne countered that the specifics of Evelyn's attire were irrelevant to the allegation that Clarke had taken a picture of her underwear. She further stated that the witness's possible intoxication was also immaterial to the claim.
