Noel Clarke could face sexual misconduct accusers at High Court libel trial

Your support helps us to tell the story

Support Now

Find out moreClose

As your White House correspondent, I ask the tough questions and seek the answers that matter.

Your support enables me to be in the room, pressing for transparency and accountability. Without your contributions, we wouldn't have the resources to challenge those in power.

Your donation makes it possible for us to keep doing this important work, keeping you informed every step of the way to the November election

Andrew Feinberg

White House Correspondent

British actor Noel Clarke may face women who have accused him of sexual misconduct at a libel trial against the Guardian newspaper, the High Court has heard.

The 48-year-old is suing the publisher, Guardian News and Media (GNM) over eight articles, including one from April 2021 which said 20 women who knew Mr Clarke in a professional capacity had come forward with the allegations.

In a statement at the time he “vehemently” denied “any sexual misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”.

The Doctor Who actor is bringing a libel and data protection claim against the publisher and is seeking £10 million in special damages.

Adam Speker KC, for Mr Clarke, said in written submissions: “The claimant has not worked since the defendant published these articles, they have entirely destroyed his career and his personal life.

“Yet the police did not consider that there was a basis to prosecute him.”

At a preliminary hearing on Thursday, Alexandra Marzec, for GNM, said the publisher intends to defend its reporting as true and in the public interest.

Ms Marzec also said some of the women who made the allegations may give evidence at the eventual trial.

She said in written submissions: “The defendant wishes to rely at trial on the oral evidence of a number of women who will give accounts of their mistreatment at the hands of the claimant in order to vindicate its journalism.”

No date for the trial has been set.

In a judgment last year, Mr Justice Johnson said that seven of the articles “mean that there are strong grounds to believe that the claimant is guilty of various forms of sexual harassment” with the eighth meaning “grounds to investigate”.

The judge also ruled all of the articles could be defamatory, which had not been disputed by GNM over seven of the pieces.