Noel Clarke is an actor, screenwriter, producer and director.
In 2021 the Guardian published allegations that there were strong grounds to believe that he was a serial abuser of women, engaging in unwanted sexual contact, sexual harassment and bullying. A six week trial of his libel and data protection claim has been listed for 3 March 2025 since June last year. In it, the Guardian raises defences of truth and publication in the public interest under ss.2 and 4 of the Defamation Act 2013.
On 8 January 2025 the claimant applied to re-amend his Particulars of Claim by adding a claim for conspiracy to injure by unlawful means and six new defendants. The respondent to the application was the Guardian, as the current defendant. The gist of this was that a large number of the sources for the Guardian’s reporting had conspired to lie to the newspaper about his sexual misconduct, and that the Guardian knew or ought to have known they had been told lies when they published.
At the Pre Trial Review on 20 January Steyn J heard submissions from counsel for the proposed new defendants as well as the parties. She made an order that the application to amend should be adjourned until after the trial, which would be on liability only. She also ordered the claimant to serve the application on the proposed new defendants if and when it was pursued after the liability trial. This was on the basis that the CPR required service of the application on them, but that even if it did not she was entitled to direct that they should.
The claimant’s appeal against these orders has been dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
On the adjournment of the amendment application the court found that the trial of the issues …as they stand would yield findings of fact with an important bearing on the fate of the Amendment Application and the conspiracy claims. It found there would be no substantial prejudice to the claimant in having to address the truth and public interest speech defences in the liability trial without a pleaded case of conspiracy to lie. The claimant would have a fair opportunity to put to the defendant’s truth witnesses a case that they were lying because they were part of a conspiracy to lie that had started by lying to the Guardian. And he could put to the journalists giving evidence on the s.4 defence that they were lying about their state of mind when they published.
The court found that the judge was entitled to direct service of the application on the proposed new defendants. Phillips LJ held that the CPR did not require this, but Popplewell and Warby LJJ declined to express a view about this because the point did not need to be decided.
Gavin Millar KC represents the Guardian, instructed by Wiggin LLP.