Multiple witnesses gave evidence about their experiences of working with Noel Clarke during his libel trial – including women who had “nothing to gain and everything to lose”, say the Guardian journalists who carried out the investigation.
Before the newspaper published its report on allegations of inappropriate behaviour and sexual misconduct in 2021, Clarke was a huge success story in the UK film and TV industry – the acclaimed filmmaker behind Kidulthood, star of hit shows including Doctor Who and Bulletproof, and recipient of a BAFTA rising star award and another for his contribution to British cinema.
Clarke denied any allegations of inappropriate behaviour or sexual misconduct, and in 2022 he sued the publishers of the newspaper for libel.
Following a trial earlier this year, a High Court judge, Mrs Justice Steyn, has now dismissed his claim, finding the meaning of the newspaper’s report and other subsequent articles it published was “substantially true”.
The trial heard evidence from multiple witnesses, including some women whose real names were not used. Their accusations against the actor and filmmaker included claims of inappropriate comments, sharing nude photographs without consent, and groping.
Here are some of the key allegations – and the judge’s response.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
5:53
Noel Clarke loses libel case
‘Maya’
An actress known as “Maya” worked on one production with Clarke and also auditioned for another, the judge said.
She alleged she had been subject to comments and looks from Clarke, and felt pressured to be naked during a scene for a TV programme.
Recording of a phone call between Clarke and the actress was heard in court, including conversation about this scene.
“It was an uncomfortable experience,” Maya said in the call. “We were rehearsing the romantic scene… I didn’t say anything to you. I felt pressured to be naked from you in that scene.”
Clarke said in court that he believed she was “acting” on the call ahead of making allegations against him.
In her ruling, Mrs Justice Steyn found Maya had been “sexually harassed, pressured and touched” by Clarke without her consent.
“It is apparent that he was insensitive to the discomfort he provoked,” the judge said. “But as is clear from his comments in the recorded phone call, and from the evidence generally, Mr Clarke would habitually, and lasciviously, look young, attractive women up and down.”
Floor runner
One woman who worked as a floor runner said her experience of working with Clarke was “extremely unpleasant” and that he was “rude and continuously belittling” towards her from the outset, according to court documents.
She said Clarke did not behave the same way towards another male runner and that she “dreaded being alone” with him as she would be “routinely undermined”. She said she became “extremely anxious” and had her first panic attack during filming when “Noel was ignoring my instructions and I couldn’t carry out my job”, which she described as humiliating.
The judge found she gave “clear, honest and reliable evidence”, and added: “She was a young woman, in a far subordinate role, who he singled out for this belittling and bullying treatment. It is probable that he acted in this way for no other reasons than that he had the power to do so, and he found it amusing.”
Image: Clarke gave evidence during the libel trial. Pic: Tayfun Salci/ZUMA Press Wire/Shutterstock
‘Penelope’
One actress, known as “Penelope”, said she worked on a sex scene with Clarke and that they discussed “perhaps wearing patches or covers”, but Noel was “insistent that he didn’t think this would work and said he wanted to ‘keep it natural’.”
In her witness statement, Penelope said she begged him to stop asking her to look at him while he was exposed and to allow others back into the room.
She said she felt “disgusted, shocked and frightened”, and concerned that he had “created an impression to the crew that I was complicit in whatever was happening behind that closed door”.
In her ruling, the judge said she found Penelope to be an honest witness and found it was not necessary for her to be naked from the waist down for the scene.
She added: “I have not found that the requirement for ‘Penelope’ to be naked below the waist for the filming of the sex scene was introduced for Mr Clarke’s sexual gratification, but he did then take advantage of it for that purpose.”
‘Imogen’
Clarke invited an actress known as “Imogen” to dinner in 2014, when she was 20, the trial heard.
Imogen alleged he propositioned her for sex and offered to take photos, and also talked about going to brothels and tried to kiss her on the street after the meal.
He looked “furious” when she avoided his kiss, she claimed.
Her account was “honest”, and save for a few minor points, “it was also reliable and accurate”, the judge found.
‘Mila’
Another actress known as “Mila” described taking part in a scene that required nudity from the waist down.
During the shoot, he also told her to bend over, asked her to sit on his lap, and made inappropriate sexual comments, she said.
Again, the judge found she had “no reason to lie”.
While Clarke denied the allegations, the judge concluded The Guardian had, save for a couple of points, proved its case in respect of Mila.
Image: Clarke won BAFTA’s rising star award in 2009. Pic: Ian West/PA
Gina Powell
Gina Powell was part of Clarke’s production company, Unstoppable, between 2014 and 2017.
She alleges he groped her in a lift, exposed himself to her in a car, and brushed off concerns about his sexual behaviour towards other women. He also kept naked pictures of others, she claimed.
Ms Powell told the court she had been through years of “guilt” watching how Clarke behaved with other women, which led to her speaking out.
The judge found that on one occasion where Clarke pinched Ms Powell’s bottom when they were being photographed, “his intent was not sexual”, and it was “intended as a friendly and jocular attempt to provoke a startled expression”.
However, she also ruled that Ms Powell was “an honest, reliable” witness and accepted the filmmaker had shown her nude photographs, as well as her evidence on what happened in the car and lift.
‘Ivy’
One woman, known only as “Ivy”, said in a witness statement that she had had a brief relationship with Clarke, while he was married, and alleged she later discovered he had shared nude photographs of her without her consent.
Ivy said she was “horrified” to discover later that the private images had been shown to others.
“Trusting him, I consensually sent him a small number of nude photos of myself,” she said. “I expressly told him that he should not show them to anyone… I believed that he would respect that.”
The court heard evidence from others who corroborated her account.
The judge, in her ruling, found The Guardian had established Clarke “revealed naked photographs” of Ivy without her consent and shared them with others.
Jing Lusi
Actress Jing Lusi, known for films including Crazy Rich Asians and series including Gangs Of London and Red Eye, worked with Clarke on the film SAS: Red Notice, which was filmed in Budapest in 2018.
She said that during a dinner, he suggested to her that they could do a read-through of the script in his “bed” or “bedroom”.
He also told her he had “fantasised” about her and described what he wanted to do to her, in a separate incident, she alleged. She said this left her feeling “disgusted”.
Clarke denied her allegations.
In her ruling, Mrs Justice Steyn said that while she accepted Ms Lusi’s account, she did find that in circumstances where Clarke’s behaviour towards her was not an abuse of power, “the events described did not assist the Guardian in establishing the truth defence”.
But what about his style ‘prince’? Some want that ditched too.
It’s a complicated but not impossible process. Andrew could, of course, just stop using it voluntarily.
Some want him to give up his home, too. For a non-working royal, the stately Royal Lodge, with its plum position on the Windsor Estate, is an uncomfortable optic.
With the reputation of the monarchy at risk, William does not want to appear weak. He’s putting loyalty to “the firm” firmly above his familial relationships.
Prince Andrew has always strongly denied the allegations, and restated on Friday: “I vigorously deny the accusations against me”. Sky News has approached him for comment on the fresh allegations set out in the Mail on Sunday.
But with Virginia Giuffre’s tragic death and posthumous memoir due out on Tuesday, Buckingham Palace will be braced for more scandal.
When Andrew gave up his titles, there was certainly a sense of relief.
There is now a sense of dread over what else could emerge.
Sky News’ royal commentator has explained why Prince Andrew has not given up being called a prince – while another expert has said “the decent thing” for him to do would be “go into exile” overseas.
Andrew announced on Friday that he would stop using his Duke of York title and relinquish all other honours, including his role as a Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter.
However, he will continue to be known as a prince.
Royal commentator Alastair Bruce said that while Andrew’s other honours and titles were conferred to him later in life, he became a prince when he was born to Elizabeth II while she was queen.
He told presenter Kamali Melbourne: “I think […] that style was quite special to the late Queen,” he said. “And perhaps the King, for the moment, thinks that can be left alone.
“It’s a matter really for the King, for the royal household, perhaps with the guidance and advice of government, which I’m sure they are taking.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:49
Who pushed Andrew to drop his titles?
Since Andrew’s announcement, there has been speculation over whether any further measures will be taken – and one author has now called for him to “go into exile”.
More on Prince Andrew
Related Topics:
Andrew Lownie, author of The Rise And Fall Of The House Of York, said: “The only way the story will go away is if he leaves Royal Lodge, goes into exile abroad with his ex-wife, and is basically stripped of all his honours, including Prince Andrew.”
Royal Lodge is the Windsor mansion Andrew lives in with his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, who has also lost her Duchess of York title.
Image: Andrew and his former wife continue to live on the Windsor estate. Pic: Reuters
Mr Lownie continued: “He makes out he’s an honourable man and he’s putting country and family first. Well, if he is, then the optics look terrible for the monarchy. A non-working royal in a 30-room Crown Estate property with a peppercorn rent.
“He should do the decent thing and go. And frankly, he should go into exile.”
Mr Lownie added if the Royal Family “genuinely want to cut links, they have to put pressure on him to voluntarily get out”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:11
Windsor’s take on Prince Andrew
Andrew’s decision to stop using his titles was announced amid renewed scrutiny of his relationship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and fresh stories linked to the late Virginia Giuffre.
Ms Giuffre, who was trafficked by Epstein, alleged she was sexually assaulted by Andrew on three occasions – which he has always vigorously denied.
Bereaved families whose loved ones took their own lives after buying the same poison online have written to the prime minister demanding urgent action.
Warning: This article contains references to suicide
The group claims there have been “multiple missed opportunities” to shut down online forums that promote suicide and dangerous substances.
They warn that over 100 people have died after purchasing a particular poison in the last 10 years.
Among those who have written to Downing Street is Pete Aitken, whose daughter Hannah was 22 when she took her own life after buying the poison from a website.
Hannah was autistic and had ADHD. She was treated in six different mental health hospitals over a four-year period.
He said: “Autistic people seem to be most vulnerable to this kind of sort of poison and, you know, wanting to take their lives.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:05
Pete Aitken speaking to Sky News
Sky News is not naming the poison, but Hannah was able to buy a kilogram of it online. Just one gram is potentially fatal.
“There’s this disparity between the concentration required for its legitimate use and that required for ending your life. And it seems quite clear you could make a distinction,” Mr Aitken said.
Analysis from the Molly Rose Foundation and the group Families and Survivors to Prevent Online Suicide Harms says at least 133 people have died because of the poison. It also says coroners have written warnings about the substance on 65 separate occasions.
The report accuses the Home Office of failing to strengthen the regulation of the poison and says not enough is being done to close dangerous suicide forums online.
Lawyers representing the group want a public inquiry into the deaths.
In a joint letter to the prime minister, the families said: “We write as families whose loved ones were let down by a state that was too slow to respond to the threat.
“This series of failings requires a statutory response, not just to understand why our loved ones died but also to prevent more lives being lost in a similar way.”
The group’s lawyer, Merry Varney, from Leigh Day, said: “The government is rightly committed to preventing deaths through suicide, yet despite repeated warnings of the risks posed by an easily accessible substance, fatal in small quantities and essentially advertised on online forums, no meaningful steps have been taken.”
Image: Hannah’s dad is one of the family members to have signed the letter
A government spokesperson said: “Suicide devastates families and we are unequivocal about the responsibilities online services have to keep people safe on their platforms.
“Under the Online Safety Act, services must take action to prevent users from accessing illegal suicide and self-harm content and ensure children are protected from harmful content that promotes it.
“If they fail to do so, they can expect to face robust enforcement, including substantial fines.”
They added that the position is “closely monitored and reportable under the Poisons Act, meaning retailers must alert authorities if they suspect it is being bought to cause harm”.
“We will continue to keep dangerous substances under review to ensure the right safeguards are in place,” they said.
Anyone feeling emotionally distressed or suicidal can call Samaritans for help on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org in the UK. In the US, call the Samaritans branch in your area or 1 (800) 273-TALK.