Actor said Noel Clarke's Bafta award would hand him ‘loaded gun' against women, court told
Jing Lusi, who stars in Gangs of London and Red Eye, is one of more than 20 women whose allegations of sexual misconduct by Clarke were reported by the Guardian in 2021-22 that form the basis of Clarke's libel claim against the publisher.
In 2021, Bafta announced that it would give Clarke the outstanding British contribution to cinema award, although it was suspended after the revelations in the Guardian.
In her witness statement, Lusi alleges that Clarke propositioned her over a dinner in 2018, 'describing sexual acts to me', repeatedly boasted about his 2009 rising star Bafta and then threatened her when she turned him down.
The court was played audio of Lusi speaking to the Guardian journalist Sirin Kale in which the actor said of Clarke's honorary award: 'It's going to be a rape tool kit. You're handing him a rape tool, either he's going to use it to seduce women and lure them back to his lair or he's going to use it to silence them … It's terrifying. He couldn't stop talking about it [the 2009 award] in 2018.'
Lusi, who also starred in Crazy Rich Asians, also said that the award was handing Clarke a 'loaded gun'. No allegations of rape were published by the Guardian. On Friday, Philip Williams, representing Clarke, asked Lusi whether she had ever made any such allegations against his client. She replied that she had not and was not accusing him of rape but when asked whether she wanted to retract her words about the award being 'a rape tool kit' she declined to do so.
She also said on the call that the 2021 award was a box-ticking exercise 'because he's black'. Lusi told the court she believed that it was a response to Bafta having been accused of 'being too white' but her issue was that Clarke's body of work 'didn't warrant any award at that level'. She compared his 'mediocre' work unfavourably with that of Ang Lee, another person of colour, who received the Bafta fellowship award in 2021.
When Williams suggested that she was 'professionally jealous' she laughed and denied it.
Clarke returned to the witness box on Friday to respond to the discovery by his former best man and business partner, Davie Fairbanks, during the trial of a hard drive containing 15 photos of a woman given the pseudonym Ivy. Fairbanks claimed Clarke had sent them to him. Ivy said she had never seen them before.
Clarke told the court: 'My explanation about him having the photographs is he stole them from my devices. I have never shared anyone's pictures, never have done, never would do. The only explanation is that Mr Fairbanks has … illicitly stored them for a decade and a half.'
Gavin Millar KC, for the Guardian, suggested that Clarke had been forced to 'come up with a theory' after the photos were found but had no evidence to support it.
The writer and producer of the Kidulthood trilogy denied Millar's assertions that he kept them for 'collateral' against women and that his argument – that he kept the photos in an unprotected folder on a laptop whose password he had given to his friend – was implausible.
Clarke said that he had stored the photographs for 'aesthetic reasons' and that Fairbanks only had the laptop password in case anything ever happened to him.
Apart from one more witness on 4 April attesting to the truth of the Guardian's reporting about Clarke, next week will be taken up by its journalists giving evidence, arguing that their reporting was in the public interest.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
13 minutes ago
- ITV News
'A never-ending nightmare': British woman sexually assaulted on a plane but denied compensation
A woman who was sexually assaulted on a flight to London is challenging Government rules that disqualify her from a compensation scheme. Kelly - who is using a fake name for anonymity - had fallen asleep on a Qatar Airways flight from Doha to London Gatwick in September last year, when she was awoken by the man sitting next to her with his hands down her trousers. Kelly was 24 at the time of the attack. She would later find out she had been assaulted by 66-year-old Momade Jussab. "It felt like a never-ending nightmare" "When I saw his hands, I tried to take them off. I said to him, what are you doing? I said, stop. He said, no, please," Kelly told ITV News. "I tried to take his hands out of my trousers. I used both hands forcefully." Frightened and shaking, Kelly ran to the aeroplane's bathroom. When she explained to a flight attendant what had happened, she was moved to a different seat for the remaining two hours of the flight. "They moved me next to a couple who were sleeping. I stayed up most of the flight. Anyone that walked past, I was scared, panicking," Kelly says. "It felt like I was never going to leave the plane. Honestly, it felt like it was a never ending nightmare. "I was just awake, staring into space, in shock, scared, looking at the couple next to me, thinking maybe they would do something. I was paranoid." Jussab was arrested upon landing, and was sentenced in May to six-and-a-half years in prison, after being found guilty of one count of sexual assault by penetration and two counts of sexual assault. But because the assault took place on a plane not registered in Britain, Kelly has been told she does not qualify for compensation, a decision her lawyers say highlights a serious oversight in the law. "I just want help. I felt like I wasn't heard" Kelly had applied for the government's Criminal Injuries Compensation (CIC) Scheme, which provides financial compensation to individuals who have been physically or mentally injured, or whose close relatives have died, as a result of violent crime in England, Scotland, and Wales. "They rejected my application and they said that it wasn't in a relevant place," says Kelly. "I appealed it and said that I'm a British citizen. He was arrested in the UK, tried in the UK, he's in a UK prison. I don't see why I should miss out on compensation just because it wasn't in the British aircraft. And they rejected it again." Kelly says the experience has left her struggling even more with poor mental health. "I felt like I wasn't heard. Honestly, even though I got justice, I still have to go to therapy. There's only so much the NHS can do, and I want to see a psychiatrist. "I know how bad my mental health is at the moment. I know what I want to do. I know that it requires money, money that I don't have. "I just want help and if I'm compensated, I can feel I can get the help that I need." But she says she feels the government doesn't fully grasp the impact of her ordeal. "I don't think they understand the severity of my case," she says. "All they have said is, I'm sorry this has happened to you, but it wasn't on a British controlled aircraft, so we can't help you." "A gap that needs closing urgently" The Civil Aviation Act was updated in 1996 to ensure criminal acts on foreign planes bound for the UK can be prosecuted in UK criminal courts, which meant that Jussab could be arrested and charged when the plane landed in Gatwick. But victims in these cases, like Kelly, still cannot be compensated. Law firm Leigh Day, which is representing Kelly, has written to Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, urging her to close what it believes is a gap in the law. 'Our client was refused compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation scheme simply because it was a foreign flight and the rules have not been amended in line with the updates to the Civil Aviation Act," says Claire Powell, a solicitor at Leigh Day. 'It is a gap that needs closing urgently and we trust the Justice Secretary will agree, particularly in light of this Government's commitment to addressing violence against women and girls.' A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: 'Our thoughts remain with this victim, and we remain resolute in our mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. 'The rules that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority follows, and the values of payments for injuries, are set by Parliament. Other routes are available for victims to receive support.' "More needs to be done" Kelly told ITV News she is not only fighting for compensation for herself, but also to raise awareness for other women. "I never thought I would go on a plane, fall asleep and wake up to someone sexually assaulting me," she says. She says she wants to see more measures put in place to help women who are victims of similar assaults. "That's why I want to speak out. More needs to be done for women that go through things like this. "This is more for the women who are already not as safe as we want to be. I want them to know that it can happen to you. And as harsh as it sounds, it can. I didn't think it would happen to me."
Rhyl Journal
16 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
How people in Epping reacted to closure of migrant hotel
Epping Forest District Council was granted a temporary High Court injunction on Tuesday blocking asylum seekers from being housed at the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex. Several protests and counter-protests have been held in the town since Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, a then-resident at the hotel, was charged with trying to kiss a teenage girl, which he denies. Following the decision on Tuesday, a crowd of about a dozen people gathered outside the hotel brandishing flags, shouting 'We've won' and popping sparkling wine, while passing traffic honked their horns at them. A few police cars were parked nearby with officers standing outside the hotel, which is fenced in. Other residents gave a mixed reaction to the injunction, with some saying they were glad to 'see it gone'. But others cited concerns about where the asylum seekers currently housed inside the hotel would be moved to in light of the court's decision. Callum Barker, 21, a construction worker who lives next to the hotel, was handing out leaflets at the protest including the names of three men staying at the Bell Hotel who are alleged to have committed criminal offences. He said he was in favour of the injunction. Mr Barker told the PA news agency: 'Our community's in danger and we don't want these people here. 'I'm ecstatic; I haven't stopped smiling. For five years, this hotel's blighted us. Everyone's had their complaints and reservations about it and I'm really glad to see it gone. 'I think nationally there will be more protests; I hope so. We want people to get out into their communities, get rid of these hotels. 'It's not right they're here on taxpayers' dime while British people struggle. 'They get three meals a day and a roof over their head while kids go hungry in school and have to rely on free dinners and I think it's terrible. The asylum system is broken.' In the town centre, Charlotte, 33, a solicitor living in Epping, said: 'I think it's kicking the can down the road because where are they going to go? 'Personally, I have lived here for four years and I've never had an issue, never noticed any problems with any asylum seekers living in the hotel a mile away. 'With the injunction today, I don't know what the long-term solution is going to be because they have to be housed somewhere so what's the alternative? 'I don't partake in (the protests). I think people are allowed to have a right of free speech but what annoys me about them is I'm on community groups on Facebook and it seems if you're not speaking about it you're presumed to be completely for it when I think a lot of people are in the middle. 'There are extremists at these protests every week.' Michael Barnes, 61, a former carpenter from Epping, said he was happy about the High Court's decision. He said: 'The question is, where does it go from here? I don't love them on my doorstep but, in fairness, they've got to live somewhere. 'I don't think it's all of them, it's just the minority of them that get up to no good.' Gary Crump, 63, a self-employed lift consultant living just outside of Epping, said: 'I was quite pleased it's actually happened. 'I don't think they should be housed in the hotels like they are. 'We haven't got the infrastructure here. The doctors' surgery is filled up in the mornings with people from there with translators. Everything is pushing the limits. We're an island. We're full. 'I've got no reason to be against people coming into the UK but I do think that the reasons given are not true in a lot of cases.' Ryan Martin, 39, who runs a natural health business, said: 'It's a good thing. When people spend a lot of money to live in this area, they want to feel safe. 'Them shutting it down probably happened because of the noise that was made about it and the reaction they saw from people because there was a strong reaction. 'It was taking a while to happen but people finally got up to protest against them being here.'
South Wales Guardian
16 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
How people in Epping reacted to closure of migrant hotel
Epping Forest District Council was granted a temporary High Court injunction on Tuesday blocking asylum seekers from being housed at the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex. Several protests and counter-protests have been held in the town since Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, a then-resident at the hotel, was charged with trying to kiss a teenage girl, which he denies. Following the decision on Tuesday, a crowd of about a dozen people gathered outside the hotel brandishing flags, shouting 'We've won' and popping sparkling wine, while passing traffic honked their horns at them. A few police cars were parked nearby with officers standing outside the hotel, which is fenced in. Other residents gave a mixed reaction to the injunction, with some saying they were glad to 'see it gone'. But others cited concerns about where the asylum seekers currently housed inside the hotel would be moved to in light of the court's decision. Callum Barker, 21, a construction worker who lives next to the hotel, was handing out leaflets at the protest including the names of three men staying at the Bell Hotel who are alleged to have committed criminal offences. He said he was in favour of the injunction. Mr Barker told the PA news agency: 'Our community's in danger and we don't want these people here. 'I'm ecstatic; I haven't stopped smiling. For five years, this hotel's blighted us. Everyone's had their complaints and reservations about it and I'm really glad to see it gone. 'I think nationally there will be more protests; I hope so. We want people to get out into their communities, get rid of these hotels. 'It's not right they're here on taxpayers' dime while British people struggle. 'They get three meals a day and a roof over their head while kids go hungry in school and have to rely on free dinners and I think it's terrible. The asylum system is broken.' In the town centre, Charlotte, 33, a solicitor living in Epping, said: 'I think it's kicking the can down the road because where are they going to go? 'Personally, I have lived here for four years and I've never had an issue, never noticed any problems with any asylum seekers living in the hotel a mile away. 'With the injunction today, I don't know what the long-term solution is going to be because they have to be housed somewhere so what's the alternative? 'I don't partake in (the protests). I think people are allowed to have a right of free speech but what annoys me about them is I'm on community groups on Facebook and it seems if you're not speaking about it you're presumed to be completely for it when I think a lot of people are in the middle. 'There are extremists at these protests every week.' Michael Barnes, 61, a former carpenter from Epping, said he was happy about the High Court's decision. He said: 'The question is, where does it go from here? I don't love them on my doorstep but, in fairness, they've got to live somewhere. 'I don't think it's all of them, it's just the minority of them that get up to no good.' Gary Crump, 63, a self-employed lift consultant living just outside of Epping, said: 'I was quite pleased it's actually happened. 'I don't think they should be housed in the hotels like they are. 'We haven't got the infrastructure here. The doctors' surgery is filled up in the mornings with people from there with translators. Everything is pushing the limits. We're an island. We're full. 'I've got no reason to be against people coming into the UK but I do think that the reasons given are not true in a lot of cases.' Ryan Martin, 39, who runs a natural health business, said: 'It's a good thing. When people spend a lot of money to live in this area, they want to feel safe. 'Them shutting it down probably happened because of the noise that was made about it and the reaction they saw from people because there was a strong reaction. 'It was taking a while to happen but people finally got up to protest against them being here.'
