Noel Clarke has suffered a significant setback in his £10 million libel case against The Guardian, as a high court judge rejected his attempt to strike out the newspaper’s defense. Melanie Steyn, presiding over the case, ruled on January 29, 2025, after hearing arguments centered around allegations of impropriety from Clarke concerning the newspaper's investigative practices.
Clarke, best known for his roles in the Doctor Who series and the Kidulthood film trilogy, is suing Guardian News and Media (GNM) over a series of articles published starting in 2021. These articles detailed accusations from twenty women who alleged Clarke was involved in groping, bullying, and sexual misconduct over several years. Clarke has vehemently denied these accusations, asserting his intention to defend himself against what he labels false claims.
During the recent hearing, Clarke's legal team, led by barrister Arthur Lo, claimed the Guardian had committed severe infractions including the destruction of key evidence. Lo contended the newspaper’s head of investigations directed journalists to erase communications on the encrypted app Signal once they were aware of potential legal action from Clarke. According to Lo, this constituted “perversion of the course of justice” and violated Clarke’s right to due process.
"It must have been at the forefront of the Guardian’s investigative team the litigation was likely," Lo argued, citing internal messages reportedly sent by Paul Lewis, GNM’s head of investigations. One notable message from Lewis read: "Can we clear all our Signal messages please? Delete this entire thread. I'll create a new thread which will likely be disclosable in court." Lo argued this indicated intent to manipulate evidence to shield from legal scrutiny.
Guardian's barrister, Gavin Millar KC, refuted Clarke’s claims, labeling them as “hopelessly weak” and accusing him of attempting to smear the integrity of the journalists involved. Millar highlighted the Guardian's policy on data minimization aimed at protecting confidential sources, asserting Clarke's allegations stemmed from misconceptions about routine practices. He emphasized, "There is not one scintilla of evidence to support these very serious allegations. They appear to have been made to launder damaging allegations against Guardian journalists which could not be made outside of court."
The court heard Clarke’s lawyers admitted they could not point to any document they claimed had been fabricated. Instead, they asserted their beleaguered defense was effective against the Guardian’s assertions of truth and public interest.
After consideration, the judge dismissed Clarke’s application to strike out the Guardian’s defense, indicating she would deliver written reasons later this year. This outcome means the trial is still set to proceed beginning March 3, 2025, and is expected to last for six weeks. During this time, approximately thirty-two witnesses are anticipated to testify against Clarke under oath, laying out the extent of the allegations against him.
The ramifications of this case are significant, particularly for Clarke, whose career faced crippling scrutiny following the Guardian's reports. After the original allegations were published, the British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) suspended Clarke’s membership and stripped him of his Outstanding Contribution to Cinema Award.
Clarke's counsel stated: "Because of the deliberate and permanent deletion of personal correspondence between the three journalists... it is the claimant’s contention impossible for the defendant to legitimately put forward a positive case." Such claims set the stage for heated discussions during the upcoming trial, as both sides prepare to present their respective narratives.
Throughout the proceedings, the Guardian has consistently defended its reporting, stating it is based on the accounts of brave women willing to come forward with their stories. The overarching theme as the legal battle intensifies seems to be the conflict between defending journalistic integrity against serious allegations of misconduct and Clarke's plea for vindication from what he describes as unjust claims.
Clarke's legal stance has raised questions about media practices and responsibilities, highlighting the fierce tension between protecting sources and accusations of misconduct. Given the severe nature of the claims made by the women involved and Clarke's vehement denials, the forthcoming trial will undoubtedly attract public attention, with many awaiting the outcome of this consequential legal drama.