The Guardian acted as the “judge, jury and executioner” of actor Noel Clarke’s career and reputation, the start of a High Court trial has heard.
The 49-year-old is suing Guardian News and Media (GNM) over seven articles and a podcast, including an article in April 2021 which said 20 women who knew Clarke in a professional capacity had come forward with allegations of misconduct.
Clarke, who denies the allegations, attended the opening of the libel trial on Friday at the Royal Courts of Justice after a delay of two days.
GNM has said it will defend its reporting as being both true and in the public interest.
Clarke’s barrister Philip Williams told the court that his client was “one of the first success stories from the black community in British television and cinema”.
He said that the actor was wrongly called a sexual predator, adding: “A sexual predator is not a womaniser, or someone who has had an extramarital affair, or a flirt, or a man who looks for mutually beneficial opportunities for sexual intercourse.
“Mr Clarke is absolutely not, and never has been, a sexual predator. The Guardian has got it plum wrong.”
The barrister continued: “The Guardian acted like archaeologists, and tried to dig up the past… they came up with a story that had more holes than a colander.”
Clarke claims Guardian articles not ‘even-handed’
In written submissions for the trial – which will only deal with liability and not the assessment of any damages – Williams said the actor “has clearly established the falsity of all of the allegations”.
Williams said that while GNM’s investigation took place over three-and-a-half weeks, Clarke was “barely able to reply to the allegations” and was only originally given 24 hours to respond.
The barrister also told the High Court in London that the articles were not framed “in an even-handed tone”, adding: “As journalists, the defendant did not simply call for an inquiry, it played the role of judge, jury and executioner of the claimant’s career and reputation.”
Williams said Clarke has worked on around 135 projects and engagements in his career, having contact with thousands of people, with the allegations related to only nine productions.
The barrister continued: “Since the publication, he has become ‘completely exiled’ from the film industry and is perceived as a criminal by all those who previously trusted and worked with him.”
The court previously heard that Clarke has asked to amend his claim, with the hearing of this bid due to take place after the libel trial concludes.
As well as increasing his claim for special damages to more than £70m, the actor wants to bring a claim over allegations that multiple people conspired against him using fabricated allegations of misconduct or sexual assault.
In written submissions for the trial, Williams said that GNM’s sources were “hostile” and had “an axe to grind” against the Doctor Who actor.
The barrister told the court that 14 of the alleged complainants were involved in a conspiracy and that the journalists involved in the articles were aware.
He said in oral submissions: “The Guardian had got caught up in a nasty conspiracy and they put their hands over their eyes.”
Guardian has ‘ample evidence’ Noel Clarke stories were ‘true or substantially true’
Gavin Millar KC, for GNM, said that the paper “did not simply accept what was said to it”.
He told the court: “There was a three-and-a-half week investigation involving two reporters working full time on the story… Much time and resource was devoted to getting to the truth.”
The barrister said in written submissions that there is “ample evidence” that all of the articles were true or substantially true.
He said: “The defendant will adduce evidence from 16 women who experienced the claimant’s misconduct first-hand, some of them on multiple occasions.
“There is no motive for them to lie and the claimant has not suggested any, beyond making wild allegations as to an alleged conspiracy.”
Millar added: “These witnesses have remained willing to give their evidence voluntarily despite the fact that, over the course of litigation, the claimant has published a number of statements on social media and elsewhere expressly or impliedly denigrating those who have made allegations against him.”
The barrister said that one of the witnesses, who can only be referred to as “Imogen”, was told by Clarke that he would go to the police if she did not agree to meet his solicitors.
Millar said that to successfully defend the case on the grounds of truth, GNM does not need to prove every incident alleged, adding: “It needs only to prove that there are grounds to believe that the claimant engaged in the type of behaviour alleged in the relevant meaning.”
A judge previously found that seven of the articles “mean that there are strong grounds to believe that the claimant is guilty of various forms of sexual harassment” with the eighth meaning “grounds to investigate”.
Millar later said that GNM reasonably believed that publishing all of the statements at the centre of the libel case was in the public interest.
He continued: “The evidence which will be given by the defendant’s senior editors and journalists, supported by contemporaneous documentary records … will show that the defendant’s editors believed publication to be in the public interest.”
The hearing before Mrs Justice Steyn is due to conclude in April, with a decision expected in writing at a later date.
Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog
