Noel Clarke and The Guardian libel trial could be delayed, Court of Appeal told
The libel trial, due to last around six weeks, is currently due to start on March 3.
The trial of the libel case brought by Noel Clarke against the publisher of The Guardian could be delayed, the Court of Appeal has heard less than two weeks before the planned start date.
The 49-year-old is suing Guardian News and Media (GNM) over a series of articles, including one from April 2021 which said 20 women who knew Clarke in a professional capacity had come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct.
The former Doctor Who star, who denies the allegations, is bringing a libel and data protection claim against the publisher, claiming in a statement at the time that he “vehemently” denied “any sexual misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”.
GNM has said it will defend its reporting as being true and in the public interest.
At a hearing on Thursday, lawyers for Clarke made an appeal bid after a judge previously said that the actor’s request to amend his claim and add more defendants would be heard after the libel trial, which is currently due to start on March 3.
Clarke alleges that multiple people conspired to cause “irreparable damage” to him using fabricated allegations of misconduct or sexual assault, and that this was “inextricably linked” to the libel case.
His barrister Philip Williams said in written submissions that the actor’s claim of an unlawful means conspiracy “would essentially never see the light of day” if the application was heard after the main trial.
He continued: “The learned judge’s decision to hear the application after the trial of the main action was an error in law, thereby creating an impossible situation which would mean the court would be unable to rectify at a later juncture.”
He later told the court that it was a “likely outcome” that the planned six-week trial would be delayed.
Lord Justice Popplewell asked: “The reality is that you are asking us, in substance, to adjourn the trial, is it not?”
Mr Williams replied: “That’s a likely outcome, I am not being shy about it.
“The prejudice to the claimant to not be able to put his case properly far outweighs the position that we’re in.”
Gavin Millar KC, for GNM, said the articles were not published with the intent to cause harm to Clarke, which would be needed in these conspiracy legal claims.
The barrister said that evidence in the case would instead “more likely support an intention, we say, in the public interest to publish newspaper articles about him following a journalistic investigation”.
He continued: “Such articles often harm somebody’s reputation but that does not mean that this was the intention in the sense envisaged by an unlawful means conspiracy.”
The barrister also said there was no “inextricable nexus” which would mean mean the libel claim and the conspiracy allegations had to be heard at the same trial.
Mr Millar added: “If the allegation is found to be true, the whole premise of the conspiracy claim falls away.”
At the end of the hearing before Lord Justice Popplewell, Lord Justice Phillips and Lord Justice Warby, the judges said they hoped to give their decision on Friday.
