Noel Clarke has lost his bid to get The Guardian newspaper’s publisher’s defence in his libel claim struck out ahead of a trial.
The 49-year-old actor, best known for his film Kidulthood and starring in Doctor Who, is suing Guardian News and Media (GNM) for libel over a series of articles which began with an investigative feature in April 2021.
Some 20 women who knew him in a professional capacity had come forward with allegations against him, the newspaper reported.
Clarke, who was present in court for the latest hearing, wearing a grey suit and dark-rimmed glasses, vehemently denied any sexual misconduct or criminal wrongdoing in a statement released at the time.
GNM is defending the legal action at the High Court in London on the grounds of truth and public interest.
At a hearing on Wednesday ahead of a full trial, lawyers for Clarke applied for GNM’s defence case to be struck out, but were unsuccessful. The trial is expected to be heard in March.
Philip Williams, representing Clarke, said in a written submission to the court that they believe there is “overwhelming evidence not just of an attempt to pervert… but actual perversion of the course of justice”.
He also alleged there had been “deliberate and permanent deletion of personal correspondence between the three journalists that undertook the purported investigations, as well as fabrication”.
This makes it “impossible for the defendant to legitimately put forward a positive case that it reasonably believed publishing the defamatory articles were in the public interest”, he argued.
Mr Williams claimed two freelance journalists were instructed to “carry out wholesale deletion” of threads on the encrypted messaging app Signal.
He also told the hearing one of the messages said: “Delete this entire thread. I’ll create a new thread which will likely be disclosable in court.”
Another message allegedly said: “Can we delete all these threads and use the final thread from now on?”
In his written submissions, Mr Williams said the messages illustrated “intent and taking steps to fabricate evidence”.
He described the alleged “destruction of evidence” as “widespread and wholesale”, and added: “It is something which they frankly admit.
“For example, the claimant maintains that four other group chats were set to auto-delete. This is admitted by the defendant.”
Be the first to get Breaking News
Install the Sky News app for free
Read more from Sky News:
TV antiques expert dies
Jake Paul and Logan Paul tease fight
Mr Williams said it was “notable” the messages instructed the two more junior journalists to delete messages, and that there was also the creation of a “carefully curated thread”, which would assist the publisher’s case.
He added: “The crux of the strike-out application is whether there had been perversion of the course of justice, or spoliation of evidence which renders a fair trial impossible.”
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Gavin Millar, representing GNM, told the court in written submissions that Clarke seeks to deprive the publisher “of its right to the trial of its defences of truth and public interest”.
He described the application as “a poor and opportunistic one for which there is no adequate evidential basis” and said it sought “to smear Guardian journalists and editors without any proper justification”.
Mr Millar added: “There is no evidence either that any evidence was ‘fabricated’.”
He told the court: “None of this ‘evidence’ raises an arguable prima facie case of bad faith, still less criminal conduct against anyone.”
Mr Williams also addressed evidence The Guardian submitted alleging Clarke sent an unsolicited explicit photo to one woman.
In his written submission, he said the picture was dated 15 May 2015, but the woman did not meet Clarke until the following month, so it was “therefore chronologically impossible”.
In court, Mr Williams said The Guardian was “alive to this issue… they ignored when they knew at the very least the dates didn’t match, and we say it’s possible, ran with it anyway”.
Mr Millar, for The Guardian, said it was “regrettable” the “hearing is being used to make these sorts of submission and allegations”.
After the hearing, a spokesperson for The Guardian said: “Today, the judge rejected Noel Clarke’s application to strike-out our defence.
“Lawyers for The Guardian told the court there is not one scintilla of evidence that journalists ‘fabricated’ evidence – a very serious claim made to launder into the public domain allegations that couldn’t have been made outside court.
“Our reporting on Noel Clarke in 2021 was based on the accounts of 20 brave women. After we published our first article, more women came forward.
“At trial, 32 witnesses are set to testify against Mr Clarke under oath. We look forward to a judge hearing the evidence.”
After the initial allegations emerged, Clarke had his BAFTA membership suspended and several TV channels also cut ties with him.
Scotland Yard said in a statement in March 2022 that, following a thorough assessment by specialist detectives, officers decided that the information they received did not meet the threshold for a criminal investigation.
