Noel Anthony Clarke -v- Guardian News and Media Limited

High CourtKing's Bench DivisionMedia and Communications ListOrder

Claim Number: QB-2022-001397

In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Media and Communications List

18 April 2025

Before:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Steyn DBE

Between:

Noel Anthony Clarke

-v-

Guardian News and Media Limited

Order

UPON the Order for Reporting Restrictions of Steyn J dated 20 January 2025 (“the ‘RRO”) (as amended by the Orders of Steyn J dated 4 March 2025, 7 March 2025 and 17 March 2025) providing for anonymity for the individual known as “Evelyn”

AND UPON the Court informing the parties on 15 April 2025 that it was minded to lift the RRO in respect of ‘Evelyn’ and inviting any submissions in respect of the proposed order

AND UPON the Defendant indicating its neutrality and the Claimant not indicating any objection

WITHOUT A HEARING AND OF THE COURT’S OWN MOTION IT IS ORDERED THAT:

  1. The confidential schedule to the RRO be varied (as shown in the Confidential Schedule to this Order) to remove reference to Evelyn/Ieva Sabaliauskaite who, for the avoidance of doubt, is no longer the subject of any order for anonymity or reporting restrictions in these proceedings.
  2. No order as to costs.

Reasons

I made the RRO in respect of Ms Sabliauskaite at the pre-trial review. In part, my reasoning was that as she was a non-witness I considered that the public interest in her being named was “relatively marginal”. Having now heard the evidence, I no longer consider that to be the case. In addition, in making the RRO in respect of Ms Sabliauskaite, I had erroneously understood that she was one of the seven “non-witnesses who are not named in the articles, but about whom evidence will be given” (PTR Transcript, pp.85 and 87 cf Fuhrmann 3, para 45). In fact, Ms Sabliauskaite had chosen to go on the record, and was named in relation to the allegation concerning her in the first article and the Podcast. The text of those articles, in which she is named, is appended to the judgment of Johnson J: [2023] EWHC 2734 (KB), so it seems to me that the essential precondition for a reporting restriction was not, in fact, met in her case, as her name had not been withheld in the proceedings. In all the circumstances, I consider that the RRO should be varied so that it no longer applies to Ms Sabliauskaite.  

Dated this 18th day of April 2025