Noel Clarke loses libel case against Guardian over sexual misconduct investigation | The Guardian

Guardian successfully defended a slander action brought by more than 20 women on an investigation of sexual abuse by more than 20 women.

In a turning point on Friday, Mrs. Justice Steyn rejected Clarke’s claims and decided that the newspaper was successful in both defenses: Truth and Public benefit.

Clarke claimed that the allegations mentioned in Guardian’s investigation were wrong and that a illegal conspiracy was a victim.

In his decision, Steyn said that Clarke accepted some evidence, “But in general I see that he is not a reliable or reliable witness”. “General Pattern” was “only with the documentary evidence (carefully worked) and then only to accept the minimumly shown to the minimum shown,” he said.

Authorized, there is no conspiracy to lie and the conspiracy claim is not a “appropriate basis”, he added.

Katharine Viner, the editor -in -chief of Guardian News & Media, who reacted to the decision, said, “The judge is in a highly clear language, we believe that the Guardian’s report is significantly correct and that the reporting is in the public interest.

“This decision is a victory he deserves for women suffering from Christmas Clarke’s behavior. It is difficult and stressful to go to court, but more than 20 women agreed to testify in the high court, refusing to make bullying or scare.

“This is also an important judgment for guardianship journalism and researcher journalism in the UK. It was important to combat this case. This was an investigated investigation that some of the best reporters of the preventive worked carefully and responsibly.

“I hope today will encourage other women in similar situations that are very scared to raise their voices to fear the results.”

In his decision, Steyn made a lot of referring to a “anonymous E -Posta campaign that made the wrong claims against Mr. Clarke. If there were such a ‘campaign’ – and BAFTA may have taken some vitriolic anonymous e -mails – it wasn’t something that any of the witnesses was a party.”

One or two of them were writing anonymously to BAFTA and said, ı The issues they brought up were true ”.

The case that it is an illegal tool was born out of necessity in the face of great witnesses who gave evidence against him ”.

He said: “There was no conspiracy to lie. In the absence of a conspiracy, Mr. Clarke’s case – None of which is a party or has a share in this case – naturally unreasonable because he came to court to lie.”

49 -year -old Clarke said that if he succeeded, he would ask for compensation of 70 million pounds.

Guardian relied on the testimony of approximately 30 people who account for his work experiences with Clarke, a former star of Doctor Who, 26. Many said that they were directly affected by the actor and others witnessed inappropriate behaviors.

The author and producer of the Kidulthood trilogy filed a lawsuit against Guardian News & Media (GNM) (GNM) (GNM), published between April 2021 and March 2022, accused of sexual abuse of more than 20 women.

The judge found that Viner believed that the publication was in the public interest with other protective editors and journalists, which was a reasonable belief.

The allegations against Clarke consisted of the following elements:

• There were strong reasons to believe this, For more than 15 years, he had used his power to hunt and harass his female colleagues.

• Sometimes he was typed by female colleagues.

• Undesirable sexual contact, kissing, touching, or grroping.

• He made sexually inappropriate behaviors and comments.

• He dealt with professional abuse.

• He shot and shared open pictures and videos, including secretly filming a young actor’s naked auditions.

The judge said in his decision that samples of each of these elements were established ”.

In the closing presentations, Gavin Millar KC for Guardian said Clarke was forced to find a “detailed conspiracy theory üzere to try to refute“ overwhelming evidence ı against him.

Clarke rejected all the allegations and claimed that his criminals were lying, adorned events, motivated with hatred, and a conspiracy against him.

Steyn said: “Mr Clarke, even though he was willing to give up sexual implications and progresses and to give up on sexual conversation with those who threw him in a certain way, he felt that he was on such a person to object to the behavior of him and saw everyone who did not want to accept it as a ‘sexual banter’.

He added that Clarke accepted one aspect of his evidence, that is, the belief that the Guardian was not ‘branded’ that he was’ branded. “Even though I find that most of the allegations in his efforts to save his career are actually in fact, the first reaction that some of my actions affect people in ways I do not intend or not realize ‘is true.

“Even if his actions are calculated and deliberately, Mr. Clarke tends to be unaware of his / her / her / her / her / her / her / her / her / her / her / her / her / her / her / her / her / her rights as a ‘naughty’, ‘cheeky’, ‘regiment’ or producer.

“In addition, he does not see himself as reflected in articles because there is a more gentle, more generous side for him. But this does not move away from the conclusions I have achieved.”

He was naked from the waist in a sex scene containing Clarke, an actor known as “Penelope, and this was not“ necessary for the images taken. He said: “I could not find that the need for ‘penelope’ was introduced for the sexual satisfaction of Mr. Clarke, but then he took advantage of it for this purpose.”

Discussing another witness, he said: “The strong impression I have won, Mr. Clarke, without considering the conditions, allowed an obvious exaggeration, as it has been reflected in the ‘million times’ refund’, he feels that he can sexually recommend any woman he wants.

“He did not understand how such behaviors could pressure or how much they could disturb young women while doing their jobs in sub -roles.”

Guardian’s reporting, the judge, said that journalists covering the investigation are a conspiracy, and knowing that viner and others were “completely unfounded and unfair to secure the publication of known mistakes.

He also said: “It is clear that none of the correspondents and editors related to the relevant reporters and the editors are right or sufficiently verified and supported to be appropriate and ready to be ready.”

Steyn, one of the individual witness accounts, said Guardian had revealed “naked photographs ve and shared them without Clarke’s consent of Clarke’s consent and shared them.

Between 2014-2017, Clarke’s film and TV company, who works at the unstoppable Productions, claim that the actor holds him in a elevator, has exposed him to a car and throws concerns about his sexual behavior towards other women. He also told the court in London that he kept the naked photos of others. He described Powell as an impressive and compelling witness that shows the courage and honesty that admirable. “He did not hesitate to find out that he was an honest, reliable witness, and does not exaggerate or exaggerate the issues he dealt with”.

Joanne Hayes, who worked as a costume assistant with Clarke in 2004 with Clarke, claimed that he was alone in the trailer on the set with him, Clarke told him that he loved long -haired girls and said, “It is nice to have something to hold from behind”. Steyn said that Hayes “gives the right, careful and reliable evidence” and “there was no reason to stand out and lie”.

In a statement, Clarke said: “Today’s outcome is disappointing. For almost five years, I have fought a strong media organization and comprehensive legal teams about false and damaging reports.

“These stories started with anonymous e -mails that depicted me as a monster to attract attention and anger. The aim was to harm my career and succeeded.

“I never claimed to be perfect. But I am not the person described in these articles. I lost everything overnight. The media organization did not just ruin my life; my family’s tears.”

Clarke also thanked the “Team standing next to me, including his family.

At the end of the hearing, Philip Williams, representing Clarke, argued that his client was a victim of an industry that tries to “liquidation after #metoo. Benny Hill and Little stressed the Britain series and emphasized the films as “inappropriate” productions and said that Clarke treatment “represents illiterate historical revisionism and ignores any nuance or context completely”.

For the Guardian, Millar said that Clarke has revealed and/or excuse most people that most people will find and/or excuse the behaviors that most people – aggressive and unacceptable – unacceptable and unacceptable -.

Sayn’s judgment, Clarke, who says that his career collapsed as a result of articles, is faced with a heavy legal invoice and may also be asked to pay most of the Guardian’s legal costs.

The hearing was a rare case of #metoo -type claims published by a UK newspaper. A victory for Clarke would allow the press to rethink the future reports on such issues.

After the publication of Guardian’s first report on Clarke, BAFTA suspended a lifetime achievement award for him the previous week, and ITV refused to publish the last part of his tension perspective.

In addition, Sky canceled the award -winning police show created by Clarke. In addition, he left his production company, which he founded and produced bulletproof, and left the TV.