Latest news with #GuardianNewsandMedia
The Guardian
11-04-2025
- Entertainment
- The Guardian
Noel Clarke ‘precisely the man' depicted in Guardian's reporting, high court told
Noel Clarke has been shown to be 'precisely the man' depicted in the Guardian's articles accusing him of sexual misconduct, vindicating its journalism, the high court has heard. In closing submissions in the former Doctor Who actor's libel claim against Guardian News and Media (GNM), Gavin Millar KC said Clarke had been forced to come up with an 'elaborate conspiracy theory' to try to rebut the 'overwhelming evidence' against him. '[The claimant] had long pinned his hopes on [the defendant's] witnesses not attending trial,' said Millar in written submissions. 'If they did, then [Clarke] had a problem: to explain how it was that (i) 28 individuals had been willing to file witness statements verified by statements of truth attesting to his misconduct, (ii) very many more had given evidence as sources … in the course of its journalistic investigation, and (iii) [the Guardian], a respected and trusted source of news reporting, could have come to publish the articles in issue if their accounts were untrue. 'So [Clarke] needed to frame a conspiracy of malevolent liars who were able and willing not only to deceive the Guardian and now this court, and including people who recruited the Guardian to its ends, persuading it to publish their lies and – in the process – deceive its editor-in-chief, Ms [Katharine] Viner, into believing that it was in the public interest to publish them. This was a wholly unevidenced and inherently implausible case.' At Friday's conclusion of the trial, which began on 7 March, Millar said that allegations made by Clarke about the motives of the Guardian's witnesses and its journalists had been shown to be a 'complete nonsense'. The conspiracy theory, he said, was 'a case born of necessary invention'. Millar said Clarke had 'a very clear motive to lie.' For Clarke, Philip Williams said that his client was the victim of an industry attempting to correct itself after the #MeToo movement. He highlighted the Benny Hill and Little Britain series and Carry On films as productions that would now be considered 'inappropriate'. He said, in written submissions: 'Mr Clarke, with his success despite his outsider status and as a clear product of that time, was simply a casualty of this purge. It represents illiterate historical revisionism and completely ignores any nuance or context.' He told the court: 'The court will realise that the Guardian has manifestly failed to do its job properly. They approached the destruction of this man's life with a cavalier, haphazard and negligent attitude which can only be described as competitive ignorance.' During the course of the trial, the Guardian argued two defences: that the allegations in the articles were true and that they were also in the public interest. The court heard from 28 'truth' witnesses who had been prepared to sign statements for the Guardian, included 21 'key witnesses' who had experienced misconduct by Clarke themselves or directly witnessed it. Millar said that their evidence supported the claims against Clarke, which were made up of several elements. They were that: Over 15 years, he used his power to prey on and harass female colleagues. He sometimes bullied female colleagues. He engaged in unwanted sexual contact, kissing, touching or groping. He engaged in sexually inappropriate behaviour and comments. He was involved in professional misconduct. He took and shared explicit pictures and videos without consent, including secretly filming a young actor's naked audition. 'The truth witnesses who gave evidence for [the Guardian] have all come up to proof. They have no reason at all to lie and every reason not to,' Millar said. In oral submissions, he told the court that Clarke's position was that 'every one of them is lying about something or, when he can't remember, then they must be lying because he wouldn't have said or done what they allege. It's an extraordinary position to take … That high number [of witnesses] is against him. It's inherently improbable.' Millar said that that witnesses were variously corroborated by other people and documentary evidence. For example, Jing Lusi messaged a friend a day or too after dinner with Clarke saying she had been 'Me-Too-ed' at work, while Imogen*, who, as a 'wide-eyed' 20-year-old, said she was propositioned over dinner by Clarke and found him 'sexually threatening' wrote a contemporary, unpublished Tumblr post about her experience. Williams said in written submissions that the Guardian had sought to rely on a handful of people who 'were plotting and carrying out their scheme from 2019 to bring about Mr Clarke's downfall, based on vitriolic hatred, professional jealousy, classist snobbery and insidious racialised bias'. He told the court: 'The alleged complainants, and the others involved in the campaign, were not acting independently.' As such, he said the court was 'not confronted with 20-plus individual complainants, but an interlinked network'. The court heard that five of Clarke's witnesses did not turn up and Millar said that excepting one, Clarke 'could not produce a single witness to support or corroborate his version of events on the key factual issues'. He described Clarke's witnesses as, bar his wife, 'male friends of his who apparently attended trial out of loyalty to him'. Williams said some of Clarke's potential witnesses had been 'frightened off', claiming that the actor's former assistant, Gina Powell, and one of his accusers, had sought to 'discredit' several with 'flawed allegations' made against them. Several Guardian journalists gave evidence during the trial to argue the publication of the articles was in the public interest. In his written submissions, Millar said: 'They have no reason at all to lie and every reason not to. And the evidence has shown overwhelmingly that [the Guardian's] assessment that publication of the articles in issue was in the public interest was not only reasonable, it was correct.' One of the Guardian's reporters, Lucy Osborne, was described by Millar as 'an obviously truthful witness who, as with her colleagues, had impressive command of the detail of the investigation notwithstanding the passage of time'. Sirin Kale, her reporting colleague, and Paul Lewis, the Guardian's investigations editor, were described as 'considered, thoughtfu and concerned to assist the court in understanding the work they undertook'. 'They were careful witnesses who were conscious at the time of the significance and potential consequences of publication.' Williams's written submissions on behalf of Clarke contained diagrams of what were described as 'primary connections' and 'secondary connections' between the actor's accusers – connections which he said the Guardian should have been aware of. He said the claims against Clarke were 'a stitch up' and that this should have been apparent to the Guardian. Williams said the public interest defence should fail because there was 'a lack of verification for some of these major issues that they could not have believed that the allegations were fit for publication'. Millar told the court that the claimant had raised 'granular points' in relation to the evidence considered by reporters to try to undermine them. He also dismissed suggestions there were racial undertones to the investigation, saying there was 'unsurprisingly no evidence whatsoever' to support the claim. He described the diagram showing purported links between the accusers as 'childish' and said that attempts to substantiate the alleged conspiracy as consisting of 'speculative questioning and attempts to fish for a case by asking about connections between witnesses and supposed sources'. He told the court: 'This was a careful, and thorough, investigation conducted conscientiously by Guardian journalists who were aware of the potential pitfalls. 'They received information from a wide range of sources with direct evidence of misconduct and in each case carefully considered and tested the information they were given, electing to publish only such information as they believed was credible. In testing those accounts they did all that could be reasonably expected of them. 'They published the allegations accurately and in the case of every published allegation also set out [Clarke']s response to the allegation. Their belief that publication of the articles was in the public interest cannot be faulted. It was plainly a reasonable belief.' In his written submissions, Millar said the evidence of Katharine Viner, the Guardian's editor-in-chief, and her deputy, Owen Gibson, went unchallenged. 'It must be accepted by [Clarke] that it was Ms Viner who took the decision that it was in the public interest to publish and she did so in good faith based on the factors she sets out in her evidence.' Clarke variously accused his accusers of lying, embellishing incidents and having axes to grind. Williams said: 'Complainants were 'carefully curated', and encouraged to cooperate with one another in order to create and embellish their complaints.' But he also denied that incidents described by witnesses amounted to sexual misconduct. In contrast to the evidence given by witnesses, Williams described some of the incidents as nothing more than 'tapping of a leg for practical purposes, bad taste jokes, unbefitting banter, consensual sex and photographs, and purported threats to silence'. He said: 'Mr Clarke was classified as a 'serial abuser' – rhetorically, what is the abuse? … Out of this of sea of insinuations and innuendoes, trying to identify actual instances of sexual harassment (which attain the threshold of s.26 of the Equality Act) or sexual assault is akin to finding needles in a haystack.' Making a point about changing standards over time, Williams also said: 'The lens of 20 years ago is not the lens of today.' But Millar said rather than admitting fault, Clarke had 'made unpersuasive but revealing efforts to normalise and/or excuse conduct that most people would find – and would have found whether 10 or 20 years ago – offensive and unacceptable'. He said the evidence had 'shown [Clarke] to be precisely the man depicted in … [the] articles, who has brought this case to trial on an entirely false basis'. Millar referred disparagingly to Clarke's suggestion that one of his accusers had been motived to perjure herself because of her belief in 'women's rights'. He said Clarke 'was an unreliable witness whose evidence on the factual issues should not be believed'. As an example, he cited Clarke's response to allegations made by one woman that she experienced unwanted sexual touching by Clarke during the filming of a sex scene. Millar said that key aspects of Clarke's evidence 'were admitted by him to be false', including that he had supported himself on his left leg throughout the scene when the film shows his hips right up against the woman's. 'All these misstatements contributed to a false narrative of the shooting of the scene,' Millar said. He told the high court that Clarke had produced 'worthless evidence'. 'The evidence which the court has heard shows overwhelmingly that [Clarke's] case must fail,' Millar told the court. '[The Guardian's] investigative journalism, and the witnesses who gave evidence of their knowledge of [Clarke's] extensive misconduct, have been vindicated.' The judge, Mrs Justice Steyn, will give her judgment at a later date. *Not their real name
The Independent
04-04-2025
- Entertainment
- The Independent
‘Clear public interest' in exposing allegations against Noel Clarke, court hears
There was a 'very clear public interest' in exposing allegations of misconduct against Noel Clarke after his Bafta win, the High Court has been told. Katharine Viner, editor-in-chief at The Guardian, said she is responsible for everything the newspaper publishes, and in that capacity took the decision to publish the Clarke investigation. Mr Clarke, 49, is suing the newspaper's publisher, Guardian News and Media (GNM), over seven articles and a podcast, including an article from April 2021 that said 20 women who knew Mr Clarke professionally had come forward with allegations of misconduct. Mr Clarke denies the allegations and has said several people who have made claims are part of a conspiracy to defame him. The publisher is defending its reporting as being both true and in the public interest. Ms Viner gave evidence at the High Court on Friday and said that Paul Lewis, the Guardian's head of investigations, told her in a meeting on April 12 2021 that Bafta had been informed of the allegations about Mr Clarke and proceeded to award him the outstanding British contribution to cinema award. Ms Viner said: 'It was apparent to me by that stage, and I think when I spoke to Paul in the prior few days, that Mr Clarke's conduct was something of an open secret in the UK film and TV industry. 'It was clearly the case that individuals had been galvanised to speak to one another to some degree before we began to investigate.' Ms Viner told the court that she was aware that Mr Clarke strongly denied the allegations, adding that she considered it appropriate to give him a 'reasonable but not lengthy period of time in which to comment'. She continued in written submissions: 'I considered there was a very clear public interest in exposing allegations of misconduct in the context that the individual in question had recently celebrated and further empowered through the special award that had been made by Bafta. 'In the light of the long period over which allegations had been made, it was conceivable that this endorsement of Mr Clarke and consolidation of his influence in the British film and television industry could enable him to continue or escalate the relevant behaviour, potentially with impunity. 'However, even if the timing of the award had not influenced the timing of publication, I consider we would likely have published the story in any case and perhaps only slightly later.' Ms Viner also said that Mr Clarke's position was presented clearly and high up in the article, and further detailed throughout. She added that she thought the 'readers were well placed to assess the credibility and significance of the findings' of the investigation. Philip Williams, for Mr Clarke, asked Ms Viner if it was correct that she did not have 'very much' to do with the investigation. She replied: 'I would say that I expect the reporters to do the reporting, the editors to do the editing, and then for them to escalate it to me. That is what happened in this case.' She added that it was her 'job to take a really big step back, take any emotion out of it' and make a decision on whether the story was in the public interest. Mr Clarke's lawyers say the conspiracy they allege 'undermines' the public interest defence. In written submissions, Mr Williams said: 'At its lowest, the defendant and its journalists were clearly aware of the conspiracy and therefore fell into its common design, and at its highest, they actively conspired with the conspirators and their associates to publish the seriously defamatory articles against the claimant.' He added that GNM and its journalists fell into a conspiracy 'wherein crimes are alleged to have been committed, against the claimant, which sought, amongst other aims, to impede him from receiving his Bafta'. The hearing before Mrs Justice Steyn is due to conclude this month with a decision in writing given at a later date.
The Guardian
04-04-2025
- Entertainment
- The Guardian
Noel Clarke allegations had ‘high public interest', Guardian editor tells court
The editor-in-chief of the Guardian, Katharine Viner, has told the high court there was a 'very high public interest' in reporting allegations made against Noel Clarke after he received a special Bafta award. In a witness statement, Viner said she believed it was conceivable that the actor's endorsement by the British academy film awards could lead to an escalation of his allegedly abusive behaviour towards women. Clarke, who is suing Guardian News and Media (GNM), the publisher of the Guardian, for libel over seven articles and a podcast published between April 2021 and March 2022, was given an honorary Bafta award in 2021, which was later suspended. Viner, who has held the position of editor-in-chief at the Guardian since 2015, said that Clarke's alleged sexual misconduct appeared to be 'something of an open secret in the UK film and TV industry'. She was made aware of the intention to follow up on leads about Clarke's behaviour in April 2021 by the Guardian's head of investigations Paul Lewis. Two journalists with experience of reporting on matters of sexual misconduct, Sirin Kale and Lucy Osborne, were assigned to the investigation, which developed at pace. In her witness statement, Viner said she had been made aware that the Daily Mirror were also investigating Clarke but added that 'we placed little, if any, importance on that in the timing of the publication'. Clarke strongly denied the allegations when they were put to him. Viner said that the number and credibility of the sources as well as the consistency of the accounts and the robustness of the reporting weighed in favour of publication. She said: 'I considered there was a very clear public interest in exposing allegations of misconduct in the context that the individual in question had been recently celebrated and further empowered through the special award that had been made by Bafta. 'In the light of the long period over which allegations had been made, it was conceivable that this endorsement of Mr Clarke and consolidation of his influence in the British film and television industry could enable him to continue or escalate the relevant behaviour, potentially with impunity. 'However, even if the timing of the award had not influenced the timing of publication, I consider we would likely have published the story in any case and perhaps only slightly later.' Philip Williams, representing Clarke, 49, asked Viner about the role she played in the coverage. She said: 'I would say that I expect the reporters to do the reporting, the editors to do the editing, and then for them to escalate it to me. That is what happened in this case.' When cross-examined, she added that when judging the public interest of a story that there were formal systems in place and that she sought to take any 'emotion out of it'. The Guardian's deputy editor, Owen Gibson, told the high court that GNM's ownership structure ensured that there was no commercial or proprietorial pressure to publish the results of an investigation. He confirmed that concerns that Clarke and his business partner, Jason Maza, were contacting witnesses and 'could cause further intimidation or distress to sources or other women, as well as potentially deterring sources from speaking to us or going on the record' had been a consideration in the timing of the first article. 'We have to look after our sources and I considered that to be a legitimate factor when considering the timing of publication,' he said. Anna Kaiser, a German film director, was the final witness in GNM's defence. She told the court that she had been an intern on the film Doghouse in 2008 in which Clarke had played a leading role. She said: 'When he arrived in the morning or when I first saw him each day, he would greet me and, on several occasions, try to pull me in with an arm before going in to peck me on the lips. 'As I recall, I pulled away every time and I can't remember if he ever actually succeeded at kissing me this way. I think this happened around a handful of times. At first it was cheeky but persistent, but it became less playful and his attitude became less friendly after I avoided it each time. My reaction each time, though I didn't say it in so many words, was 'oh, not this again''. When asked by Clarke's barrister whether this was not simply standard behaviour on such an intimate and friendly film set, Kaiser noted that none of the other men on the set had greeted female colleagues by kissing them on the lips. The closing submissions in the trial will be heard on Friday before a written judgment by Mrs Justice Steyn.
The Guardian
01-04-2025
- Entertainment
- The Guardian
Guardian journalist received large number of leads after Noel Clarke article, court told
A Guardian journalist who has worked on high-profile investigations into allegations of sexual misconduct by men said the volume of fresh leads received after writing about Noel Clarke was the most she had ever witnessed. Lucy Osborne, who, with Sirin Kale, carried out the Guardian's investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct against the Doctor Who actor, told the high court that she was 'taken aback' by how many people got in touch after publication of the first article. Clarke, 49, is suing Guardian News and Media (GNM) over seven articles and a podcast published between April 2021 and March 2022 in which more than 20 women accused him of sexual misconduct. Osborne, who has also worked on investigations about David Copperfield and the former Elite model agency boss Gérald Marie, said in her witness statement: 'I remember being taken aback by the number of possible leads we received following the first article. 'By way of example, at least 25 new sources came forward between publication of the first article and the fourth article – a 24-hour period. Following the fourth article we continued to receive many unsolicited messages from individuals with new leads to our personal emails, the investigations inbox and both mine and Sirin's social media accounts. 'Our sources were also connecting us with people who had reached out to them. This volume of leads was far larger than I have experienced on any investigation before or since, including articles I have written about individuals more well-known than Mr Clarke.' Giving oral evidence on Tuesday, Osborne said the investigation received 'so many leads that it was impossible to follow up all of them'. In her witness statement she explained her communications with sources and how she and Kale went about corroborating allegations. She said expressions and types of sexual language used by Clarke came up repeatedly. 'For example, multiple sources described him talking about sexual acts with sex workers and two women who did not know one another said he told them he wanted to 'climb them like a tree' – a term that I felt was so specific it was unlikely to be a coincidence,' wrote Osborne. The beginning of her cross-examination by Clarke's barrister, Philip Williams, focused largely on Osborne's communications with Gina Powell, who previously worked for the writer-producer of the Kidulthood trilogy at Unstoppable Productions. Williams suggested that Powell, who started off as an assistant producer with Unstoppable, was part of a conspiracy to destroy Clarke's career because she had a 'financial grudge' against him. Osborne said in her witness statement that the journalists spoke to 12 people who provided information corroborating Powell's allegations. When Williams suggested to Osborne that it should have been of concern when Clarke told the Guardian that Powell was in dispute with him over money, she replied that Powell had already told her about it and that they had 'numerous conversations' concerning the matter. She described Powell as an 'upfront' and 'credible' witness. In her witness statement, Osborne said that Powell provided very detailed descriptions of the alleged incidents involving her former boss and appeared to be 'still scared of Mr Clarke and what he could do to her. She told me that she was worried that Mr Clarke would turn up on her doorstep and noted that she was scared of going to Soho in case she bumped into him. She also told me that she was concerned about the impact that speaking out publicly could have on her career. I did not anticipate she would decide to speak out publicly for that reason.' In the event, Powell's allegations against Clarke did appear alongside her real name in the first Guardian article. In her witness statement, she said she was quitting the industry because of her experience working with him. Earlier on Tuesday, in a similar vein to his questioning of Osborne about Powell, Williams put to the Guardian's head of investigation, Paul Lewis, that 'some sources clearly have axes to grind'. Lewis replied: 'The inference as I see it … is that's the reason they spoke to us, but I don't think the sources were speaking to us for that reason.' He told the court that the motivation of the sources was that they were alleged victims of sexual misconduct who wanted to 'hold him [Clarke] to account'.
The Guardian
31-03-2025
- Entertainment
- The Guardian
Noel Clarke left women he thought spoke to Guardian ‘fearful and in tears'
The actor Noel Clarke made calls to some of the women he thought were cooperating with the Guardian prior to the publication of its investigation into his behaviour, leaving them 'shaken, fearful and in tears', the high court in London has heard. The Guardian's head of investigations, Paul Lewis, was giving evidence in defence of Clarke's libel claim against the news publisher over allegations of sexual misconduct. Detailing the steps taken during the investigation into allegations against the former Doctor Who star, Lewis said in his witness statement that he had become aware that Clarke and his business partner Jason Maza had been making calls to women they thought had spoken to the Guardian's reporters. The women had found the approaches upsetting and some had been left 'shaken, fearful and in tears', Lewis said. In the calls, Clarke had shown a willingness to apologise to some of his alleged sexual misconduct victims if they did not speak to the Guardian about him, the high court was told. Lewis told the court that what was said in the calls presented 'a very different picture' to Clarke's communications with the Guardian, which had included blaming Adam Deacon, an actor Clarke had mentored who was found guilty in 2015 of harassing Clarke, for the allegations. 'Mr Clarke was making what struck me as a highly implausible claim: that all 22 women were either fabricating claims about his behaviour, or mischaracterising events, potentially to settle grudges or grievances,' Lewis wrote in his statement. 'Mr Clarke was insisting that Mr Deacon was secretly coordinating these allegations, a conspiracy theory which was untrue.' Lewis said that he had the impression calls made by Clarke and Maza were an attempt at 'trying to keep a lid on … past unethical or inappropriate behaviour by Mr Clarke, and that he was potentially even prepared to apologise for it, but wanted to dissuade women from discussing such behaviour with journalists'. Lewis returned to the subject of the calls when Philip Williams, representing Clarke, put to the journalist that it was 'wholly unreasonable' to give his client 24 hours to respond to such serious allegations before publication. Lewis said in response that Clarke was eventually given 76 hours after requests for extensions. He explained that the timeframe reflected that Clarke had direct knowledge of all of the alleged incidents and had already addressed some of them to Bafta. Lewis said there were also fears he 'could intimidate people' he thought might have spoken to the Guardian in the hope they would withdraw their cooperation. The writer-producer of the Kidulthood trilogy, who is suing Guardian News and Media in relation to eight publications from 2021-22, alleges that Lewis and others were involved in a conspiracy to destroy his career. Williams put to Lewis that there had been 'a high degree of coordination' between sources before they approached the Guardian that should have rung 'alarm bells'. Lewis rejected that characterisation, stating: 'It would have been strange if everyone had come to us in an exact silo and none of them had ever spoken to each other.' In his witness statement, he said: 'I was struck by the large number of women, many of whom did not know one another, making allegations that were similar to one another in nature.' He said allegations were corroborated by contemporaneous written records, people who sources had confided in at the time and who the Guardian also spoke to. Lewis told the court that, in response to an allegation that Clarke filmed a 'gratuitous scene' that could never have been used because an actor's anus was visible, his solicitors, Simkins, initially responded by claiming it was 'required by the script', which a copy revealed to be untrue. Lewis said he believed that publication 'would hold Mr Clarke to account over these matters, and contribute to a wider debate about conduct by powerful figures in the workplace … If we opted not to publish, we believed there was a very real risk that Mr Clarke would continue to abuse his position as alleged, resulting in more victims.'
