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 âjudge, jury and executionerâ of his career.
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 âwas not a credible or reliable witnessâ.
In a statement following the ruling, Clarke described the decision as âdisappointingâ.
During a weeks-long trial earlier 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 âinstances of each of those elements have been establishedâ.
This included that one witness in the trial, known only as âMayaâ, was âsexually harassed, pressured and touchedâ by Clarke without her consent, and that he had âsingled outâ another witness for âbelittling and bullying treatmentâ.
The judge found that Clarke had also covertly filmed the naked auditions of two women.
In the 224-page ruling, Mrs Justice Steyn said: âThe 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 âbeen turned down a million timesâ, even allowing for the obvious hyperbole â regardless of the circumstances.
âHe 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.â
The judge later said that she accepted some of the actorâs evidence, adding: âEven 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 ânaughtyâ, âcheekyâ, âteasingâ or within his rights as a director or producer.
âIn addition, he does not see himself as reflected in the articles because there is a kinder, more generous side to him.
âBut that does not detract from the conclusions I have reached.â
The judge later said that Clarkeâs case was âalmost entirely one of robust denial and counter-allegationsâ and that he had alleged that most of the Guardianâs witnesses were at least partially lying.
She continued: âMr Clarke has a very clear motive to lie. He says the Guardianâs publications have been career ending and he values success in the claim in excess of ÂŁ70 million⌠It is obvious that the first article had a hugely damaging impact on his reputation, his career and his finances.â
Following the judgment, Clarke said that he wished to thank his family âwho never stopped believing there was something worth fighting forâ as well as the team âwho stood beside me throughoutâ.
He also said: âFor 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.
âI have never claimed to be perfect. But I am not the person described in these articles. Overnight I lost everything, the media outlet didnât just ruin my life they ripped through my familyâs also.â
Barristers for Clarke previously told the court that there had been 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, Mrs Justice Steyn said the conspiracy claim did not have a âproper foundationâ.
She said: âMr Clarkeâs 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.
âIt 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 â or any evidential basis on which such a case could have been put.â
She added: âThere has been no conspiracy to lie. In the absence of a conspiracy, Mr Clarkeâs case that more than 20 witnesses â none of whom are parties or have a stake in this case, as he does â have come to court to lie is inherently implausible.â
Following the ruling, the Guardianâs editor in chief Katharine Viner said the decision was a landmark for investigative journalism in the UK.
She said: âThis 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.
âThis is also a landmark judgment for Guardian journalism, and for investigative journalism in Britain. It was important to fight this case.
âThis was a deeply-researched investigation by some of the Guardianâs best reporters, who worked diligently and responsibly.
âThe judgment is clear that our investigation was thorough and fair, a template for public interest journalism.
âI 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.â
Clarke may now face a substantial legal bill, with a further hearing expected to deal with costs.
