Actor Noel Clarke has lost his libel claim against the Guardian with a judge backing its reporting that he harassed, touched or bullied several women.
Clarke, 49, sued Guardian News and Media (GNM) over seven articles and a podcast, including an article in April 2021 that said 20 women who knew him professionally had come forward with allegations of misconduct, including harassment and sexually inappropriate behaviour.
The Doctor Who actor denied the allegations, with his lawyers previously saying the newspaper had acted as the “judge, jury and executioner” of his career and had not conducted a thorough journalistic investigation in order to rush to print and beat rival newspapers.
GNM defended its reporting as being both true and in the public interest and in a judgment on Friday, judge Mrs Justice Steyn agreed, also finding Clarke “was not a credible or reliable witness”.
In a statement following the ruling, Clarke described the decision as “disappointing”.
During a weeks-long trial in March this year, the High Court in London heard evidence from multiple witnesses who made accusations against the Kidulthood writer, also including allegations of sexual misconduct such as sharing nude photographs of them without their consent or groping.
Mrs Justice Steyn found that “instances of each of those elements have been established”.
This included that one witness in the trial, known only as “Maya”, was “sexually harassed, pressured and touched” by Clarke without her consent, and that he had “singled out” another witness for “belittling and bullying treatment”.
The judge found that Clarke had also covertly filmed the naked auditions of two women.
Clarke had ‘no understanding’ of pressure his actions had
In the 224-page ruling, Mrs Justice Steyn 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.”
The judge later said that she accepted some of the actor’s evidence, adding: “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.”
First article had ‘hugely damaging impact’ on Clarke’s reputation
The judge later said that Clarke’s case was “almost entirely one of robust denial and counter-allegations” and that he had alleged that most of the Guardian’s witnesses were at least partially lying.
She continued: “Mr Clarke has a very clear motive to lie. He says The Guardian’s publications have been career ending and he values success in the claim in excess of £70 million… It is obvious that the first article had a hugely damaging impact on his reputation, his career and his finances.”
Following the judgment, Clarke said that he wished to thank his family “who never stopped believing there was something worth fighting for” as well as the team “who stood beside me throughout”.
He also said: “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.”
Philip Williams, for Clarke, said in written submissions at the end of the trial in April that the conspiracy began in 2019 and was propagated through anonymous emails under the pseudonym Karen Karenson.
Williams said: “A handful of people were plotting and carrying out their scheme from 2019 to bring about Mr Clarke’s downfall, based on vitriolic hatred, professional jealousy, classist snobbery and insidious racialised bias.”
Clarke added at the end of judgement: “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.”
Claims of conspirators with ‘personal grudges’
Barristers for Clarke previously told the court that there had been a group of “primary conspirators” with financial and personal grudges against him who engineered his downfall with “wildly unfounded accusations” because they could not bear to see him receive a Bafta award.
After The Guardian’s reporting went public, Bafta withdrew its award from the actor, citing the story as the first detailed evidence it had seen about the allegations.
However, Mrs Justice Steyn said the conspiracy claim did not have a “proper foundation”.
She said: “Mr Clarke’s case that there is an unlawful means conspiracy against him, in which many of the witnesses, and some non-witnesses, are said to have engaged, was born of necessity, in the face of the large body of witnesses giving evidence against him.
“It lacked any proper foundation and led to numerous witnesses being asked speculative questions as to their connections, without a case being put that they conspired and colluded to invent allegations – or any evidential basis on which such a case could have been put.”
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.”
Ruling is ‘deserved victory’ for victims, says Viner
Guardian’s editor-in-chief Katharine Viner said the decision was a landmark for investigative journalism in the UK.
She said: “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.
“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.”
Clarke may now face a substantial legal bill, with a further hearing expected to deal with costs.
The post Noel Clarke loses libel case against Guardian appeared first on Press Gazette.
