This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . The next check for changes will be

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/aug/22/noel-clarke-loses-libel-case-against-guardian-over-sexual-misconduct-investigation

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Noel Clarke loses libel case against Guardian over sexual misconduct investigation Noel Clarke loses libel case against Guardian over sexual misconduct investigation
(about 4 hours later)
High court rejects actor’s claim that accusations against him by more than 20 women were false and part of a conspiracyHigh court rejects actor’s claim that accusations against him by more than 20 women were false and part of a conspiracy
The Guardian has successfully defended a libel action brought by the actor Noel Clarke over an investigation in which he was accused of sexual misconduct by more than 20 women.The Guardian has successfully defended a libel action brought by the actor Noel Clarke over an investigation in which he was accused of sexual misconduct by more than 20 women.
In a landmark high court judgment handed down on Friday, Mrs Justice Steyn rejected Clarke’s claims, and ruled the newspaper had succeeded in both its defences: of truth and public interest.In a landmark high court judgment handed down on Friday, Mrs Justice Steyn rejected Clarke’s claims, and ruled the newspaper had succeeded in both its defences: of truth and public interest.
Clarke had claimed the allegations set out in the Guardian’s investigation were false and that he had been the victim of an unlawful conspiracy.Clarke had claimed the allegations set out in the Guardian’s investigation were false and that he had been the victim of an unlawful conspiracy.
In her ruling, Steyn said she accepted some of Clarke’s evidence, “but overall I find that he was not a credible or reliable witness”. His “general pattern” was “of only being prepared to admit that which was established by documentary evidence (which he had carefully studied), and even then only to the minimum extent shown,” she said.In her ruling, Steyn said she accepted some of Clarke’s evidence, “but overall I find that he was not a credible or reliable witness”. His “general pattern” was “of only being prepared to admit that which was established by documentary evidence (which he had carefully studied), and even then only to the minimum extent shown,” she said.
She added there had been no conspiracy to lie, and the conspiracy claim did not have a “proper foundation”.She added there had been no conspiracy to lie, and the conspiracy claim did not have a “proper foundation”.
Reacting to the judgment, Katharine Viner, the editor-in-chief of Guardian News & Media, said: “The judge ruled, in extremely clear language, that the Guardian’s reporting was substantially true, and our belief that the reporting was in the public interest was undoubtedly reasonable.Reacting to the judgment, Katharine Viner, the editor-in-chief of Guardian News & Media, said: “The judge ruled, in extremely clear language, that the Guardian’s reporting was substantially true, and our belief that the reporting was in the public interest was undoubtedly reasonable.
“This judgment is a deserved victory for those women who suffered because of the behaviour of Noel Clarke. Going to court is difficult and stressful, yet more than 20 women agreed to testify in the high court, refusing to be bullied or intimidated.“This judgment is a deserved victory for those women who suffered because of the behaviour of Noel Clarke. Going to court is difficult and stressful, yet more than 20 women agreed to testify in the high court, refusing to be bullied or intimidated.
“This is also a landmark judgment for Guardian journalism, and for investigative journalism in Britain. It was important to fight this case. This was a deeply researched investigation by some of the Guardian’s best reporters, who worked diligently and responsibly. The judgment is clear that our investigation was thorough and fair, a template for public interest journalism.“This is also a landmark judgment for Guardian journalism, and for investigative journalism in Britain. It was important to fight this case. This was a deeply researched investigation by some of the Guardian’s best reporters, who worked diligently and responsibly. The judgment is clear that our investigation was thorough and fair, a template for public interest journalism.
“I hope today will give encouragement to other women in similar situations who have been too fearful to raise their voices for fear of the consequences.”“I hope today will give encouragement to other women in similar situations who have been too fearful to raise their voices for fear of the consequences.”
In her judgment, Steyn said: “There has been much reference to an “anonymous email campaign” making false allegations against Mr Clarke. If there was such a ‘campaign’ – and it seems Bafta may have received some vitriolic anonymous emails – it was not something to which any of the witnesses were party.”In her judgment, Steyn said: “There has been much reference to an “anonymous email campaign” making false allegations against Mr Clarke. If there was such a ‘campaign’ – and it seems Bafta may have received some vitriolic anonymous emails – it was not something to which any of the witnesses were party.”
While one or two of them wrote anonymously to Bafta, “the matters they raised were true”, she said.While one or two of them wrote anonymously to Bafta, “the matters they raised were true”, she said.
She added: “There has been no conspiracy to lie. In the absence of a conspiracy, Mr Clarke’s case that more than 20 witnesses – none of whom are parties or have a stake in this case, as he does – have come to court to lie is inherently implausible.” Clarke’s case that there was an unlawful conspiracy “was born of necessity, in the face of the large body of witnesses giving evidence against him”, she said.
She said: “There has been no conspiracy to lie. In the absence of a conspiracy, Mr Clarke’s case that more than 20 witnesses – none of whom are parties or have a stake in this case, as he does – have come to court to lie is inherently implausible.”
Clarke, 49, had said he would seek £70m in damages if successful.Clarke, 49, had said he would seek £70m in damages if successful.
The Guardian relied on testimony from almost 30 people, 18 of whom gave accounts in court about their experiences of working with Clarke, a former star of Doctor Who. Many said they had been directly affected by the actor, while others said they had witnessed inappropriate behaviour. The Guardian relied on testimony from almost 30 people, 26 of whom gave accounts in court about their experiences of working with Clarke, a former star of Doctor Who. Many said they had been directly affected by the actor, while others said they had witnessed inappropriate behaviour.
The writer and producer of the Kidulthood trilogy sued Guardian News & Media (GNM) over seven articles and a podcast published between April 2021 and March 2022 in which more than 20 women accused him of sexual misconduct.The writer and producer of the Kidulthood trilogy sued Guardian News & Media (GNM) over seven articles and a podcast published between April 2021 and March 2022 in which more than 20 women accused him of sexual misconduct.
The judge found that Viner, along with other Guardian editors and reporters, believed publication was in the public interest, which was a reasonable belief.The judge found that Viner, along with other Guardian editors and reporters, believed publication was in the public interest, which was a reasonable belief.
The allegations against Clarke were made up of the following elements:The allegations against Clarke were made up of the following elements:
There were strong grounds to believe that, over 15 years, he had used his power to prey on and harass female colleagues.There were strong grounds to believe that, over 15 years, he had used his power to prey on and harass female colleagues.
He sometimes bullied female colleagues.He sometimes bullied female colleagues.
He engaged in unwanted sexual contact, kissing, touching or groping.He engaged in unwanted sexual contact, kissing, touching or groping.
He engaged in sexually inappropriate behaviour and comments.He engaged in sexually inappropriate behaviour and comments.
He was involved in professional misconduct.He was involved in professional misconduct.
He took and shared explicit pictures and videos without consent, including secretly filming a young actor’s naked audition.He took and shared explicit pictures and videos without consent, including secretly filming a young actor’s naked audition.
There were strong grounds to believe that, over 15 years, he had used his power to prey on and harass female colleagues.There were strong grounds to believe that, over 15 years, he had used his power to prey on and harass female colleagues.
He sometimes bullied female colleagues.He sometimes bullied female colleagues.
He engaged in unwanted sexual contact, kissing, touching or groping.He engaged in unwanted sexual contact, kissing, touching or groping.
He engaged in sexually inappropriate behaviour and comments.He engaged in sexually inappropriate behaviour and comments.
He was involved in professional misconduct.He was involved in professional misconduct.
He took and shared explicit pictures and videos without consent, including secretly filming a young actor’s naked audition.He took and shared explicit pictures and videos without consent, including secretly filming a young actor’s naked audition.
In her ruling, the judge said that “instances of each of those elements have been established”.In her ruling, the judge said that “instances of each of those elements have been established”.
In closing submissions, Gavin Millar KC, for the Guardian, said Clarke had been forced to come up with an “elaborate conspiracy theory” to try to rebut the “overwhelming evidence” against him.In closing submissions, Gavin Millar KC, for the Guardian, said Clarke had been forced to come up with an “elaborate conspiracy theory” to try to rebut the “overwhelming evidence” against him.
Clarke denied all the allegations and variously claimed that his accusers were lying, embellishing incidents, motivated by grudges and that there was a conspiracy against him.Clarke denied all the allegations and variously claimed that his accusers were lying, embellishing incidents, motivated by grudges and that there was a conspiracy against him.
Steyn said: “While Mr Clarke was willing to desist from making sexual allusions and advances and engaging in sexual talk with those who unequivocally spurned him, he clearly felt the onus was on such a person to object to his behaviour and he regarded anyone who was unwilling to acquiesce in his ‘sexual banter’ as haughty and hostile.”Steyn said: “While Mr Clarke was willing to desist from making sexual allusions and advances and engaging in sexual talk with those who unequivocally spurned him, he clearly felt the onus was on such a person to object to his behaviour and he regarded anyone who was unwilling to acquiesce in his ‘sexual banter’ as haughty and hostile.”
She added she accepted one aspect of Clarke’s evidence, namely “his belief that he is not what the Guardian ‘branded’ him”. “Although I find that he has been untruthful about most of the allegations in his efforts to salvage his career, his initial response that ‘some of my actions have affected people in ways I did not intend or realise’ was true.She added she accepted one aspect of Clarke’s evidence, namely “his belief that he is not what the Guardian ‘branded’ him”. “Although I find that he has been untruthful about most of the allegations in his efforts to salvage his career, his initial response that ‘some of my actions have affected people in ways I did not intend or realise’ was true.
“Even when his actions have been calculated and deliberate, Mr Clarke has tended to be oblivious to their impact, regarding his own behaviour as merely being ‘naughty’, ‘cheeky’, ‘teasing’ or within his rights as a director or producer.“Even when his actions have been calculated and deliberate, Mr Clarke has tended to be oblivious to their impact, regarding his own behaviour as merely being ‘naughty’, ‘cheeky’, ‘teasing’ or within his rights as a director or producer.
“In addition, he does not see himself as reflected in the articles because there is a kinder, more generous side to him. But that does not detract from the conclusions I have reached.”“In addition, he does not see himself as reflected in the articles because there is a kinder, more generous side to him. But that does not detract from the conclusions I have reached.”
She found in one sex scene involving Clarke, an actor known as “Penelope” was naked from the waist down, and this was “not necessary” for the purposes of the footage taken. She said: “I have not found that the requirement for ‘Penelope’ to be naked below the waist for the filming of the sex scene was introduced for Mr Clarke’s sexual gratification, but he did then take advantage of it for that purpose.”She found in one sex scene involving Clarke, an actor known as “Penelope” was naked from the waist down, and this was “not necessary” for the purposes of the footage taken. She said: “I have not found that the requirement for ‘Penelope’ to be naked below the waist for the filming of the sex scene was introduced for Mr Clarke’s sexual gratification, but he did then take advantage of it for that purpose.”
Discussing another witness, she said: “The strong impression that I gained is that Mr Clarke felt that he could sexually proposition any woman he wanted, as reflected in his evidence that he has ‘been turned down a million times’, even allowing for the obvious hyperbole – regardless of the circumstances.Discussing another witness, she said: “The strong impression that I gained is that Mr Clarke felt that he could sexually proposition any woman he wanted, as reflected in his evidence that he has ‘been turned down a million times’, even allowing for the obvious hyperbole – regardless of the circumstances.
“He had no understanding of how pressuring such conduct could be, or how uncomfortable it could make young women, in subordinate roles to him, feel while performing their jobs.”“He had no understanding of how pressuring such conduct could be, or how uncomfortable it could make young women, in subordinate roles to him, feel while performing their jobs.”
At the conclusion of the trial, Philip Williams, representing Clarke, argued that his client was the victim of an industry attempting a “purge” in the wake of the #MeToo movement. He highlighted the Benny Hill and Little Britain series and Carry On films as productions that would now be considered “inappropriate”, and said the treatment of Clarke “represents illiterate historical revisionism and completely ignores any nuance or context”. Of the Guardian’s reporting, the judge said the case that journalists covering the investigation became a party to a conspiracy and knowingly deceived Viner and others to secure publication of known falsehoods was “wholly unfounded and meritless”.
Gavin Millar KC, for the Guardian, said Clarke had “made unpersuasive but revealing efforts to normalise and/or excuse conduct that most people would find – and would have found, whether 10 or 20 years ago – offensive and unacceptable”. She also said: “It is readily apparent that none of the reporters and editors involved had any interest in publishing any allegation that they did not believe to be true, or sufficiently verified and corroborated to be fit and ready for publication.”
Of individual witnesses accounts, Steyn said the Guardian had established that Clarke “revealed naked photographs” of a woman known as “Ivy” without her consent and shared them.
Gina Powell, who worked at Clarke’s Unstoppable Film and TV production company between 2014 and 2017, alleges the actor groped her in a lift, exposed himself to her in a car, and brushed off concerns about his sexual behaviour towards other women. She also told the court in London that he kept a hard drive of naked pictures of others. The judge described Powell as “an impressive and compelling witness” who “demonstrated admirable bravery and integrity”. Steyn said she had “no hesitation in finding that she was an honest, reliable witness, who did not overstate or exaggerate any of the matters which she addressed”.
Joanne Hayes, who in 2004 worked with Clarke on Doctor Who as a costume assistant, claims that, while alone with her in his trailer on set, Clarke told her he liked girls with long hair, adding words to the effect that it was “nice to have something to hold on to when I do them from behind”. Steyn said Hayes “gave truthful, careful and reliable evidence” and had “no reason to come forward and lie”.
In a statement, Clarke said: “Today’s result is disappointing. For almost five years, I have fought against a powerful media outlet and its extensive legal teams over inaccurate and damaging reporting.
“These stories started via anonymous emails portraying me as a monster to attract attention and outrage. The goal was to damage my career, and they succeeded.
“I have never claimed to be perfect. But I am not the person described in these articles. Overnight I lost everything. The media outlet didn’t just ruin my life; they ripped through my family’s also.”
Clarke thanked the “team who stood beside me throughout”, including his family, “who never stopped believing there was something worth fighting for”.
At the conclusion of the trial, Philip Williams, representing Clarke, argued that his client was the victim of an industry attempting a “purge” after the #MeToo movement. He highlighted the Benny Hill and Little Britain series and Carry On films as productions that would now be considered “inappropriate”, and said the treatment of Clarke “represents illiterate historical revisionism and completely ignores any nuance or context”.
Millar, for the Guardian, said Clarke had “made unpersuasive but revealing efforts to normalise and/or excuse conduct that most people would find – and would have found, whether 10 or 20 years ago – offensive and unacceptable”.
Steyn’s judgment means Clarke, who said his career had collapsed as a result of the articles, faces a hefty legal bill and may also be required to pay the bulk of the Guardian’s legal costs.Steyn’s judgment means Clarke, who said his career had collapsed as a result of the articles, faces a hefty legal bill and may also be required to pay the bulk of the Guardian’s legal costs.
The trial was a rare case of #MeToo-type allegations published by a UK newspaper going to trial. A victory for Clarke would have been likely to make the press rethink future reporting on such issues.The trial was a rare case of #MeToo-type allegations published by a UK newspaper going to trial. A victory for Clarke would have been likely to make the press rethink future reporting on such issues.
After the publication of the Guardian’s first report on Clarke, Bafta suspended a lifetime achievement award it had given him the previous week and ITV declined to broadcast the final episode of the thriller Viewpoint, in which he was starring.After the publication of the Guardian’s first report on Clarke, Bafta suspended a lifetime achievement award it had given him the previous week and ITV declined to broadcast the final episode of the thriller Viewpoint, in which he was starring.
Additionally, Sky cancelled the award-winning police show Bulletproof, which was created by and starred Clarke. He also left Unstoppable Film and TV, the production company he co-founded and which produced Bulletproof. Additionally, Sky cancelled the award-winning police show Bulletproof, which was created by and starred Clarke. He also left Unstoppable Film and TV, the company he co-founded and which produced Bulletproof.