The Guardian has successfully defended a libel action brought by the actor Noel Clarke over an investigation by the newspaper in which he was accused of sexual misconduct by more than 20 women.
In a high court judgment handed down on Friday, Mrs Justice Steyn rejected Clarke’s claim. He had said the allegations set out in the Guardian’s investigation were false and that he had been the victim of an unlawful conspiracy.
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 Clarke, while others said they had witnessed inappropriate behaviour.
The Guardian argued the allegations were true and that the articles and podcast about him were in the public interest.
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 allegations against Clarke were made up of the following elements:
-
There were strong grounds to believe that over 15 years, he used his power to prey on and harass female colleagues.
-
He sometimes bullied female colleagues.
-
He engaged in unwanted sexual contact, kissing, touching or groping.
-
He engaged in sexually inappropriate behaviour and comments.
-
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.
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 had been shown to be “precisely the man” depicted in the Guardian’s articles accusing him of sexual misconduct, vindicating its journalism, the high court heard.
The actor had 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.
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”.
Millar 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.
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 that 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.