Noel Clarke loses libel claim against Guardian newspaper publisher

Actor Noel Clarke has lost his High Court libel claim against the publisher of the Guardian newspaper over its reporting of misconduct allegations.

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 bullying, harassment and sexually inappropriate behaviour.

The Doctor Who actor denies the allegations, while GNM defended its reporting as being both true and in the public interest.

Mrs Justice Steyn agreed, dismissing Clarke’s claim in a judgment on Friday saying that the newspaper “succeeded in establishing both truth and public interest defences to the libel claim”.

She added: “I have accepted some of Mr Clarke’s evidence… but overall I find that he was not a credible or reliable witness.”

The High Court in London heard evidence from multiple witnesses who made accusations against Clarke, including that he had allegedly shared nude photographs of them without their consent, groped them, and asked them to look at him when he was exposed.

Mrs Justice Steyn ruled on Friday 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”.

She also said that the Guardian News and Media had established that Clarke “revealed naked photographs” of a woman known as “Ivy” without her consent and shared them with others.

Barristers for Clarke told the court that there was a conspiracy of people with financial and personal grudges against him who engineered his downfall because they could not bear to see him receive a Bafta award.

However Gavin Millar KC, for GNM, said there was “not a shred of evidence” to support Clarke’s claim of a conspiracy, describing it as “nonsensical and rather desperate speculation”.

In Friday’s judgment, 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.”

The judge also found the Guardian’s editor in chief Katharine Viner – along with other editors and reporters – believed publication was in the public interest, which was a reasonable belief.

Following the ruling, Ms 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.”