High Court sides with The Guardian over actor Noel Clarke libel claim
The High Court has thrown out actor Noel Clarke’s libel case against The Guardian over its story that detailed sexual misconduct he was alleged to have committed against 20 women.
The Guardian published allegations from 20 women claiming sexual misconduct by Clarke in 2021; the first article was titled “‘Sexual predator’: actor Noel Clarke accused of groping, harassment and bullying by 20 women”.
Clarke, known for playing Mickey Smith in Doctor Who, had his academy membership suspended by BAFTA in 2021 when the allegations of verbal abuse, bullying, and sexual harassment were published by The Guardian.
He initially sought legal action against the academy but dropped his claim in 2022, instead launching a libel claim against Guardian News and Media (GNM).
The case went to trial earlier this year at the High Court, where it was reported that Clarke claimed the publisher of the Guardian newspaper had “smashed my life”.
However, The Guardian presented evidence from 26 witnesses to support its truth defence, arguing that their accounts established the primary facts of the allegations.
Today, the High Court sided with the publisher after it ruled in favour of the Guardian on three key points: serious harm, truth defence, and public interest defence. The court dismissed Clarke’s claim, adjourning the case to September 23 for consideration of further arguments.
Commenting on the ruling, Guardian editor-in-chief Katharine Viner welcomed the ruling.
“The judge ruled, in extremely clear language, that the Guardian’s reporting was substantially true, and our belief that the reporting was in the public interest was undoubtedly reasonable.”
“The 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,” Viner added.