Importance Score: 82 / 100 🟢
Noel Clarke ‘Shook’ Alleged Victims With Calls Before Misconduct Report, Court Hears
Actor Noel Clarke reportedly contacted women he suspected of collaborating with The Guardian before the publication released its probe into his conduct, leaving them “distressed, fearful and in tears,” London’s High Court was told.
Libel Case Defence
Paul Lewis, The Guardian’s investigations editor, presented testimony in defense of Clarke’s defamation lawsuit against the news organization concerning allegations of sexual impropriety.
Detailing the investigative process into the accusations against the former Doctor Who actor, Lewis stated in his witness testimony that he became aware Clarke and his business associate, Jason Maza, had been phoning women they believed had been in contact with The Guardian’s journalists.
Impact of Phone Calls
According to Lewis, these approaches distressed the women, with some left “shaken, fearful and in tears”.
The court was informed that in these calls, Clarke implied a willingness to apologize to some of his purported sexual misconduct victims if they refrained from speaking to The Guardian about him.
Contrasting Accounts
Lewis informed the court that the content of these calls presented a “starkly different portrayal” compared to Clarke’s communications with The Guardian. Clarke had allegedly blamed Adam Deacon, an actor he had mentored and who was convicted of harassing Clarke in 2015, for orchestrating the accusations.
“Mr. Clarke asserted what appeared to me as a highly improbable claim: that all 22 women were either inventing accusations about his behavior, or misrepresenting incidents, possibly to settle scores or grievances,” Lewis stated in his written evidence. “Mr. Clarke insisted that Mr. Deacon was secretly coordinating these allegations, a conspiracy theory which was unfounded.”
Attempt to ‘Contain’ Allegations
Lewis conveyed his impression that the calls made by Clarke and Maza were an attempt at “trying to suppress … past unethical or inappropriate conduct by Mr. Clarke, and that he was potentially even prepared to apologize for it, but wanted to discourage women from discussing such conduct with journalists”.
Response Time Questioned
The topic of the calls resurfaced when Philip Williams, representing Clarke, suggested to Lewis that it was “completely unreasonable” to grant his client only 24 hours to respond to such grave allegations before publication.
Lewis countered that Clarke was ultimately provided with 76 hours following requests for extensions.
He clarified that the timeframe was deemed appropriate because Clarke possessed direct awareness of all the alleged incidents and had previously addressed some of them with Bafta.
Concerns About Intimidation
Lewis also expressed concerns that Clarke “could intimidate people” he suspected might have spoken to The Guardian, hoping they would retract their cooperation.
Clarke’s Conspiracy Claim
The writer-producer of the Kidulthood trilogy, who is pursuing legal action against Guardian News and Media concerning eight publications from 2021-22, contends that Lewis and others were engaged in a conspiracy to ruin his profession.
Williams proposed to Lewis that there had been “a significant degree of coordination” among sources before they contacted The Guardian, which should have raised “red flags”.
Lewis refuted this characterization, stating: “It would have been unusual if everyone had approached us in complete isolation and none of them had ever communicated with each other.”
Similar Allegations From Multiple Sources
In his witness statement, Lewis noted: “I was struck by the substantial number of women, many of whom were unacquainted with one another, making accusations that were similar in nature.” He added that allegations were supported by contemporaneous written records, individuals to whom sources had confided at the time, and whom The Guardian also interviewed.
Disputed Scene and Public Interest
Lewis recounted that, regarding an allegation that Clarke filmed an “unnecessary scene” that was unusable due to an actor’s exposed anus, Clarke’s legal representatives, Simkins, initially responded by claiming it was “required by the script,” which a review of the script proved false.
Lewis stated his belief that publication “would hold Mr. Clarke accountable for these matters, and contribute to a broader discussion about behavior by influential figures in the workplace… If we chose not to publish, we believed there was a substantial risk that Mr. Clarke would continue to abuse his position as alleged, resulting in further victims.”