Actor Noel Clarke has lost his High Court libel case against the publisher of The Guardian, over a series of news articles which featured claims from a number of women.

The first article, published in April 2021, said some 20 women who knew Clarke in a professional capacity had come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct.

The 49-year-old actor, writer and director, best known for his 2006 film Kidulthood and starring in Doctor Who, sued the publisher and vehemently denied “any sexual misconduct or wrongdoing” – but the court has found Guardian News and Media (GNM) successfully defended the legal action on the grounds of truth and public interest.

The meanings of all eight of the newspaper’s publications were found to be “substantially true”, the judge, Mrs Justice Steyn, said in a summary of the findings.

“I have accepted some of Mr Clarke’s evidence… but overall I find that he was not a credible or reliable witness,” she said.

In her ruling, the judge also said suggestions that more than 20 witnesses, “none of whom are parties or have a stake in this case, as [Clarke] does” had come to court to lie was “inherently implausible”.

From the evidence heard, it was “clear that women have been speaking about their experiences of working with Mr Clarke for many years”, she said.

‘A deserved victory for women who suffered’

Lucy Osborne and Sirin Kale, the journalists who carried out the investigation, told Sky News they had always been confident in everything published.

“I think that this is not a problem that’s going to go away,” said Osborne. “This kind of behaviour very much still happens in the TV and film industry and other industries. So I do hope this judgment gives other women the confidence to speak out about what they’ve experienced.”

Guardian editor-in-chief Katharine Viner described the ruling as “a deserved victory for those women who suffered because of the behaviour of Noel Clarke”.

She continued: “Going to court is difficult and stressful, yet more than 20 women agreed to testify in the High Court, refusing to be bullied or intimidated.

“This is also a landmark judgment for Guardian journalism, and for investigative journalism in Britain… The judgment is clear that our investigation was thorough and fair, a template for public interest journalism.”

Clarke’s response

Clarke described the result as disappointing and maintained he believes the newspaper’s reporting was “inaccurate and damaging”.

“I have never claimed to be perfect,” he said. “But I am not the person described in these articles. Overnight I lost everything.”

He said he wanted to thank witnesses who supported his case, as well as his family, “who never stopped believing there was something worth fighting for”.

What happened during the trial?

The trial took place from early March to early April 2025, hearing evidence from multiple witnesses who made accusations against Clarke, including that he had allegedly shared nude photographs of them without their consent, groped them, and asked them to look at him when he was exposed.

Clarke also gave evidence over several days. At one stage, the actor appeared visibly emotional as he claimed the publisher had “smashed my life” with its investigation.

His lawyer told the court he had been made a “scapegoat” and was an “easy target”, as a star at the height of his success when the media industry “zealously sought to correct itself” following the #MeToo movement.

The actor had been handed the outstanding British contribution to cinema award at the BAFTAs just a few weeks before the report was published. Following the article, BAFTA announced it had suspended his membership.

But lawyers for The Guardian told how newspaper’s investigation was “careful and thorough”, saying it had been carried out “conscientiously” by the journalists involved.

In March 2022, police said the actor would not face a criminal investigation over the allegations.

On the 10th anniversary of the Shoreham air disaster, the families of some of those killed have criticised the regulator for what they describe as a “shocking” ongoing attitude towards safety.

On 22 August 2015, a vintage fighter jet plummeted out of the sky and crashed into one of the busiest roads in Sussex, killing 11 men.

Most of them weren’t even watching the aerobatic display overhead when they were engulfed in a fireball that swept down the dual carriageway.

Jacob Schilt, 23, and his friend Matthew Grimstone, also 23, were driving to play in a match for their football team, Worthing United FC.

Both sets of parents are deeply angry that their beloved sons lost their lives in this way.

“It obviously changed our lives forever, and it’s a huge reminder every 22nd of August, because it’s such a public anniversary. It’s destroyed our lives really,” his mum, Caroline Shilt, said.

“It was catastrophic for all of us,” Jacob’s father, Bob, added.

‘They had no protection’

Sue and Phil Grimstone argue that the regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), has not been held accountable for allowing the airshow to take place where it did.

“At Shoreham, the permission given by the CAA did not allow displaying aircraft to perform over paying spectators or their parked cars,” they said.

“But aircraft were permitted to fly aerobatics directly over the A27, which was in the display area, a known busy road.

“This was about ignoring the safety of people travelling on a major road in favour of having an air show. They had no protection.”

Caroline Schilt said the continuing lack of accountability, a decade after the disaster, “makes us very angry.”

A series of catastrophic errors

The crash happened while the experienced pilot, Andy Hill, a former RAF instructor, was attempting to fly a loop in a 1950s Hawker Hunter jet.

But he made a series of catastrophic errors. His speed as the plane pitched up into the manoeuvre was far too slow, and therefore, he failed to get enough height to be able to pull out of the dive safely. The jet needed to be at least 1,500ft higher.

Mr Hill survived the crash but says he does not remember what happened, and a jury at the Old Bailey found him not guilty of gross negligence manslaughter in 2019.

When the inquest finally concluded in 2022, the coroner ruled the men had been unlawfully killed because of a series of “gross errors” committed by the pilot.

The rules around air shows have been tightened up since the crash, with stricter risk assessments, minimum height requirements, crowd protection distances, and checks on pilots.

But Jacob and Matt’s families believe the CAA still isn’t doing enough to protect people using roads near airshows, or other bystanders not attending the events themselves.

“They’re really not thinking about third parties and other road users,” said Caroline. “It’s quite shocking” added Bob.

The families recently raised concerns about the Duxford airshow in a meeting with the CAA.

While aircraft are no longer allowed to fly aerobatics over the M11, they do so nearby – and can fly over the road at 200ft to reconfigure and return. If the M11 has queuing traffic in the area, the display must be stopped or curtailed.

The Grimstones believe this demonstrates accepting “an element of risk” and are frustrated that the CAA only commissioned an independent review looking at congested roads and third-party protection earlier this year.

“We feel the CAA are still dragging their feet when it comes to the safety of third parties on major roads directly near an air show,” they said.

The family have complained about the CAA to the parliamentary ombudsman.

‘There are still question marks’

Some experts also believe the CAA has questions to answer about a previous incident involving Mr Hill, after organisers of the 2014 Southport Airshow brought his display to an emergency stop because he had flown too close to the crowd, and beneath the minimum height for his display.

In its investigation into the Shoreham disaster, the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) later found that while the CAA inspector present had an informal discussion with the pilot, no further action was taken, and the incident was not reported to the AAIB.

Retired pilot Steve Colman has spent many years looking into what happened at Shoreham, and he believes the CAA failed to fulfil their statutory obligation to fully investigate and report the incident at Southport.

“If it had been properly investigated,” he said, “it’s likely the minimum height on the pilot’s display authorisation would have been increased – from 500ft on the Hawker Hunter, it would probably have been increased to 800-1000ft. Or it could have been cancelled. But we will never know.

“You have to ask the question – if the Southport incident had been investigated, then was Shoreham more likely or less likely to have occurred?” he said. “I think there can only be one answer – it’s less likely to have occurred.”

Tim Loughton, who was the MP for Shoreham at the time, believes a balance must be struck.

“We don’t want to regulate these events out of existence completely. A lot of the smaller air shows no longer happen because they couldn’t comply with the new regulations … but certainly there are still question marks over the way the CAA conducted and continues to conduct itself. I would welcome more parliamentary scrutiny.”

Read more from Sky News:
London Underground workers to strike
Man charged with killing ice cream seller

Rob Bishton, chief executive at the CAA, said: “Our thoughts remain with the families and friends of those affected by the Shoreham Airshow crash.

“Following the crash, several investigations and safety reviews were carried out to help prevent similar incidents in the future. This included an immediate review of airshow safety and a full investigation by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch. All recommendations and safety improvements from these reviews were fully implemented.

“Airshows continue to be subject to rigorous oversight to ensure the highest possible safety standards are maintained.

“At a previous airshow in 2014 the pilot involved in the Shoreham accident was instructed to abort a display by the show’s flying director. This incident was investigated by the UK Civil Aviation Authority and regulatory action was taken.”

Mr Bishton added: “As part of the work to review the safety oversight of airshows following the tragic Shoreham crash, the actions taken by the regulator following such a stop call were enhanced.”

But the families of those killed still believe much more could be done.

Government efforts to reduce the use of expensive hotel accommodation for asylum seekers have stalled in the face of local opposition and court bottlenecks.

During last year’s election, Labour promised to end the use of hotels by 2029.

But data released on Thursday by the Home Office shows there are more asylum seekers in hotels than when Sir Keir Starmer took office.

As of 30 June this year, there were 32,059 asylum seekers staying in hotels compared with 29,585 in June 2024.

It has sparked protests by residents and legal action by councils.

You can see how the policy has affected your area using the table below.

The government has been trying to get more asylum seekers into residential housing, which is much cheaper than hotels, by dispersing them to more locations across the country.

But the arrival of asylum seekers in new areas, and the use of residential housing to accommodate them, has provoked a backlash from residents and local politicians.

This has made it crucial for the government to cut the overall number in need of housing – either by reducing the number of applicants or by processing their claims more quickly.

The data, however, shows that the government is struggling on both fronts.

Effort to reduce hotel use

Both Conservative and Labour governments have sought to decrease reliance on hotel accommodation for asylum seekers due to soaring costs.

The Home Office spent £4.76bn on asylum last year, almost four times as much as it spent in 2020-21 (£1.34bn). Of every £1 spent, 76p went on hotel accommodation alone.

Housing an asylum seeker in a hotel costs around £170 per night, compared with £27 for other types of accommodation, according to estimates by Oxford University’s Migration Observatory.

A policy introduced in 2023, under the Conservatives, sought to reduce reliance on hotels by dispersing asylum seekers more evenly across the country.

Data shows that the policy started having an impact even before it was formally implemented.

In September 2022, 31% of asylum seekers were housed in just ten councils. Three months later, that figure had fallen to 24%.

But Sky News analysis shows that areas which have seen more asylum seekers arriving since then are actually more likely to use hotels – undercutting the purpose of the policy.

Residents and politicians have also raised concerns about the main alternative to hotels – the use of residential housing, including houses in multiple occupation (HMOs).

In her maiden speech to Parliament in May, Reform MP for Runcorn and Helsby Sarah Pochin described HMOs housing asylum seekers as “breeding grounds for organised crime gangs”.

A huge backlog of claims

The fact that the government is being criticised wherever it places asylum seekers suggests that their real problem is the overall number of asylum seekers requiring accommodation.

As of June, that number stood at 102,866, more than twice as high as March 2020 (48,042) and only 14% below the record levels reached in September 2023 (119,010).

The government is required under international law to provide asylum seekers with housing while their claims are being assessed if they would otherwise be “destitute”.

And because the government also forbids asylum seekers from working until their claims are approved, that means they have to provide accommodation for almost all of them.

Since 2020, the number of asylum seekers awaiting a final decision on their claim has more than doubled.

That is partly due to a slowdown in processing asylum claims.

In May 2019, the Conservative government abandoned a target of processing most claims within six months. By March 2020, the share processed within six months fell from 52% to 39%.

“By delaying or not taking decisions, they produced this huge backlog that also put a lot of pressure on the provision of accommodation,” says Professor Nando Sigona of the University of Birmingham.

A rise in asylum applications

The issue was exacerbated by a surge in asylum claims after pandemic restrictions were eased in 2021.

Home Office data shows that the number of decisions made on asylum applications fell during this period and only began to increase significantly in 2023.

That increase in decisions has helped to cut the number of cases awaiting an initial decision over the past year from 85,839 to 70,532.

On Thursday, as the statistics were released, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said the government was making progress on the backlog and had reduced it by 18%.

But appeals to these initial decisions are common, and the government is required to house asylum seekers until their appeals are over.

Data from the Ministry of Justice shows that, as of March this year, 50,976 claims were awaiting appeal decisions.

That puts the total backlog at 129,721 cases, up from 119,066 in June last year.

Professor Sigona says that the number of people applying for asylum has risen across Europe in recent years, but that other countries have avoided being obliged to house so many of them by relaxing work requirements.

“In Europe asylum seekers are allowed to work much more rapidly,” says Eleonore Kofman, professor of gender, migration and citizenship at Middlesex University.

Without the right to work, she says, “you kind of lock them into destitution and you have to provide housing for them”.

The government has struggled to reduce small boat arrivals

As well as increasing the processing of asylum claims, the government has sought to reduce the number of claims by reducing small boat crossings.

However, a total of 43,309 people arrived in the UK by small boat during Labour’s first year in office, a 38% increase on the year before. Almost all of them (99%) claimed asylum.

In the year to June, people crossing on small boats accounted for 38% of asylum claims.

The UK requires people to apply for asylum from within the country but does not offer a visa for those wishing to make an application.

This means that most people who want to flee to the UK must come illegally – either by using another type of visa, or by entering irregularly.

On 6 August, a deal between the UK and France took effect, opening up a new route for asylum seekers and a possible way for the government to deter small boat crossings.

Under the agreement, France will accept the return of migrants who arrive in the UK by small boat in exchange for the UK accepting an equivalent number of asylum seekers currently in France.

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said that the new policy “sends a message to every migrant currently thinking of paying organised crime gangs to go to the UK that they will be risking their lives and throwing away their money if they get into a small boat.”

Speaking to Sky News on Thursday, director of the Migration Observatory think tank Madeleine Sumption said it remains unclear how many people France will agree to take back.

“If it’s a relatively small, symbolic number… then asylum seekers may just see that there’s one more risk… at the end of an already risky journey and [it’s] something that they’re willing to accept.”

As of Wednesday, 2,561 migrants had arrived in the UK by small boat since the policy took effect.

Additional reporting by Sophia Massam.

The Data and Forensics team is a multi-skilled unit dedicated to providing transparent journalism from Sky News. We gather, analyse and visualise data to tell data-driven stories. We combine traditional reporting skills with advanced analysis of satellite images, social media and other open source information. Through multimedia storytelling we aim to better explain the world while also showing how our journalism is done.