Women’s charities have welcomed a high court judgement dismissing a £70 million libel claim against the Guardian by Doctor Who actor Noel Clarke after a judge found he was ‘not a credible or reliable witness’.
CEO of the Centre of Women’s Justice Harriet Wistrich said the judgement was ‘great news’ and hailed it as a ‘blow to wealthy and famous men who think they can use money to silence women’.
Karen Ingala Smith, former CEO of nia, a domestic and sexual violence charity working to end violence against women and girls added that Clarke ‘now adds himself to the list of wealthy, abusive men who have tried and failed to use the law to minimise, hide or deny their behaviour.’
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.
Clarke denied the allegations, while GNM defended its reporting as being both true and in the public interest.
Mrs Justice Steyn dismissed Clarke’s claim in a judgment this morning, 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 judge said Clarke’s case ‘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’.
Guardian editor-in-chief Katharine Viner said its libel victory over Clarke 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.’
Meanwhile, women who gave evidence against Clarke have warned that the culture of the television and film industries needs to change to protect women and girls from sexual predators.
‘Noel’s behaviour was an open secret, everyone knew. He didn’t work alone’, said Penelope, a pseudonym used for an actor who filmed a sex scene with Clarke.
‘Those who enabled and protected him should be accountable’.
Helen Atherton, who endured sexual banter when she worked with Clarke, told The Guardian that she hoped the revelations about the actor would ‘encourage others who have been affected by similar experiences to speak out’.
She said: ‘In mt experience, this behaviour has become less common but I think there is still a way to go before this is true across the industry as a whole.
‘The regulation and accountability of powerful individuals needs to improve’.
Mrs Justice Steyn said in her ruling that one witness in the trial, known only as ‘Maya’, was ‘sexually harassed, pressured and touched’ by Clarke without her consent.
‘Maya’ told the trial in March that she was subject to comments and looks from Clarke, and felt pressured to be naked during a scene for a programme on which they worked together.
The judge also found that Clarke ‘singled out’ one of the witnesses, Hollie Ibson, who worked as a scheduler for the BBC, for ‘belittling and bullying treatment’.
She continued that it was ‘probable that he acted in this way for no other reasons than that he had the power to do so, and he found it amusing’.
She further found 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.
The judge also said that Clarke ‘felt entitled to proposition young women for sex’.
Mrs Justice Steyn continued: ‘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 continued that she accepted one aspect of Clarke’s evidence, namely ‘his belief that he is not what the Guardian ‘branded’ him’.
She said: ‘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.
‘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 her ruling, Mrs Justice Steyn said that in one sex scene involving Clarke, an actress known as ‘Penelope’ was naked from the waist down.
She said that 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, the judge 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.’
A trial earlier this year heard 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.
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.
The trial of the libel claim was held from early March to early April at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.
Clarke, who has previously appeared in TV shows including Doctor Who, Auf Wiedersehen, Pet and Bulletproof, gave evidence over several days.
At one stage, he appeared visibly emotional as he claimed the publisher had ‘smashed my life’.
He said: ‘They have smashed my life for four years with this rubbish, this nonsense. Four years.’
He continued: ‘I did not do this, I would not do this. I have got children. This is not true.’
He later said that while he was ‘a flawed guy’, he added: ‘The reason I stand here four years later is I am not what they have branded me.’
Philip Williams, representing the actor, said that his client was a ‘casualty’ of a media ‘purge’ following the emergence of the MeToo movement.
He continued that Clarke was made a ‘scapegoat’ and was an ‘easy target’ because he was at the height of his success when the media industry ‘zealously sought to correct itself’.
The barrister also criticised the Guardian’s investigation, saying the newspaper ‘manifestly failed to do its job properly’.
Mr Williams asked the court to find the claim successful, saying the Guardian’s reporting has caused serious harm to Clarke’s career, with ‘continuing hostile reactions online and in public discourse’.
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’.
He said Clarke had a ‘very clear motive to lie’ because he ‘stands to lose a great deal’.
In written submissions, Mr Millar said Clarke ‘used his power to prey on and harass female colleagues’ over a period of 15 years.
He said: ‘This was a careful and thorough investigation conducted conscientiously by Guardian journalists who were aware of the potential pitfalls.
‘They received information from a wide range of sources with direct evidence of misconduct and in each case carefully considered and tested the information they were given, electing to publish only such information as they believed was credible.’
Londoner Clarke won the Most Promising Performer award in 2003 at the Olivier Awards for his performance in Where Do We Live at the Royal Court Theatre, and then significantly widened his fan base by playing Billie Piper’s boyfriend, Mickey Smith, in Doctor Who.
He later wrote and starred in the acclaimed film trilogy Kidulthood, Adulthood and Brotherhood, directing two of them.
He won the Bafta rising star award in 2009, and a Bafta for outstanding British contribution to cinema in 2021.
In a statement following the High Court ruling, 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 also thanked the ‘team who stood beside me throughout’, including his family, ‘who never stopped believing there was something worth fighting for’.