Noel Anthony Clarke v Guardian News and Media Ltd

Hearing dates: 5–7 March 2025; 10–14 March 2025; 17–21 March 2025; 24–28 March 2025; 31 March – 4 April 2025; 11 April 2025

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 22 August 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

Index

A. Introduction

The well-known actor, screenwriter, producer and director, Noel Clarke, brings this action for libel in respect of eight articles published by the Guardian. The general subject-matter of the publications is indicated by the headline to the first article complained of: “ Sexual predator: actor Noel Clarke accused of groping, harassment and bullying by 20 women”.

Mr Clarke rose to prominence with a recurring role as “ Mickey Smith” in the Doctor Who television series and starring roles in the films Kidulthood, Adulthood and Brotherhood, which he also wrote, and, for the two later films, directed. In February 2009, Mr Clarke received the Orange Rising Star Award from the British Academy of Film and Television Arts (‘BAFTA’). In 2013, he appeared in Star Trek Into Darkness. By 2021, Mr Clarke had starred in, among other productions, three seasons of Bulletproof, a hit television series on Sky One, which he created, wrote and executively produced with his co-star, Ashley Walters. On 10 April 2021, he was awarded the prestigious prize for Outstanding British Contribution to Cinema by BAFTA, but that award and his BAFTA membership were suspended immediately following publication on 29 April 2021 of the first article.

The claim is brought against Guardian News and Media Limited (‘the Guardian’) which is the owner and publisher of the Guardian newspaper, the Guardian's website (at www.theguardian.com) and the Guardian app.

The principal issues on which I heard evidence and submissions over the course of the six-week trial are, first, whether the Guardian has shown that the meaning of each of the articles is substantially true and so established the statutory defence of truth to the libel claim pursuant to s.2 of the Defamation Act 2013 (‘the 2013 Act’). And, secondly, whether the Guardian has shown (a) that each of the articles was, or formed part of, a statement on a matter of public interest, (b) that those who made the decisions to publish honestly believed it was in the public interest to do so; and (c) that it was objectively reasonable in all the circumstances for the Guardian to believe that publication was in the public interest, so as to establish the statutory defence of publication on a matter of public interest pursuant to s.4 of the 2013 Act. The Guardian relies on both defences, but establishing either one would be a complete answer to the claim.

There is also an issue, in respect of the second to eighth articles, whether the “ serious harm” threshold for actionability in s.1 of the 2013 Act is satisfied. That issue does not arise in respect of the first article which the Guardian admits has caused (or is likely to cause) serious harm to Mr Clarke's reputation.

B. The Articles And Their Meanings

The eight articles complained of (‘the Articles’) are:

i) An article entitled, “ ‘Sexual predator’: actor Noel Clarke accused of groping, harassment and bullying by 20 women”, by Sirin Kale and Lucy Osborne, which was first published online by the Guardian at 7.35pm on Thursday 29 April 2021 (‘the first article’);

ii) An article entitled “ ITV will not air finale of Noel Clarke drama after sexual harassment claims”, by Jim Waterson, which was first published online on 30 April 2021 (‘the second article’);

iii) An article entitled “ How Bafta spent two weeks grappling with Noel Clarke dilemma”, by Sirin Kale and Lucy Osborne, which was first published online on 30 April 2021 (‘the third article’);

iv) An article entitled “ Noel Clarke shows dropped as allegations shake TV industry”, by Lucy Osborne, Sirin Kale and Jim Waterson, which was first published online on 30 April 2021 (‘the fourth article’);

v) A podcast entitled “ Noel Clarke and the allegations that have shaken the film and television industry”, presented by Rachel Humphreys with Sirin Kale and Lucy Osborne, which was first published online on 7 May 2021 (‘the fifth article’ or ‘the Podcast’);

vi) An article entitled “ Noel Clarke accused of sexual harassment on Doctor Who set”, by Sirin Kale and Lucy Osborne, which was first published online on 7 May 2021 (‘the sixth article’);

vii) An article entitled “ After Noel Clarke: can the UK film and TV industry bring an end to on-set bullying?”, by Sirin Kale, Amelia Gentleman and Lucy Osborne, which was first published online on 27 May 2021 (‘the seventh article’); and

viii) An article entitled “ Women's rights activists dismayed by Met refusal to investigate Noel Clarke”, by Sirin Kale, which was first published online on 28 March 2022 (‘the eighth article’).

Each of the Articles was published in hard copy, online and on the app, save for the second article and the Podcast which were published only online. The text of the Articles is set out in Appendix 1 to the judgment of Johnson J given following the trial of preliminary issues as to meaning: Clarke v Guardian News & Media Ltd [2023] EWHC 2734 (KB).

The natural and ordinary meanings of the Articles were determined by Johnson J as follows:

The first article

“There are strong grounds to believe that the claimant is a serial abuser of women, that he has, over 15 years, used his power to prey on and harass and sometimes bully female colleagues, that he has engaged in unwanted sexual contact, kissing, touching or groping, sexually inappropriate behaviour and comments, and professional misconduct, taking and sharing explicit pictures and videos without consent, including secretly filming a young actor's naked audition.”

The second article

“There are strong grounds to believe that the claimant has engaged in sexual harassment and bullying of women.”

The third article

“There are strong grounds to believe that the claimant has engaged in verbal abuse, bullying and sexual harassment.”

The fourth article

“There are strong grounds to believe that the claimant has subjected women to sexual harassment and bullying, and that he wrongly encouraged students to remove their clothes during improvisation...