Noel Clarke denied appeal over bid to throw out Guardian defence in libel trial
The libel trial of the claim brought by the actor against the publisher of the newspaper is due to start on Monday.
Noel Clarke has been refused permission to challenge a judge’s decision not to throw out The Guardian publisher’s defence in a High Court libel claim brought by the actor.
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.
In a statement made when the articles were published, Clarke “vehemently” denied “any sexual misconduct or wrongdoing”.
Last month, lawyers for the former Doctor Who star applied to have GNM’s defence of his claim thrown out, claiming the publisher had deleted some messages and fabricated a thread on Signal – an encrypted messaging app.
But Mrs Justice Steyn rejected these claims and dismissed the application earlier this month, stating the “extremely serious allegation” that evidence had been fabricated had “no foundation”.
Clarke had sought to challenge the decision at the Court of Appeal and asked for the trial of the claim – set to begin on Monday – to be delayed while the appeal was heard.
But Lord Justice Warby ruled on Thursday that Clarke could not appeal the decision, stating it would have “no real prospect of success” and that there was “no other compelling reason for this court to hear an appeal”.
In a short judgment, he also said there was “no basis” to delay the start of the trial.
Mrs Justice Steyn had previously dismissed an argument from Clarke’s lawyers that GNM had perverted or attempted to pervert the course of justice.
Lord Justice Warby said Clarke’s lawyers had argued that Mrs Justice Steyn had made findings that could not be supported by the evidence she had.
However, he continued: “To succeed in an appeal on an issue of fact an appellant has to identify a material error of principle or a material factual finding that was not reasonably open to the judge on the evidence before her.
“In my judgment the claimant has no prospect of showing either of those things.
“I cannot see how the claimant could hope to persuade this court to second-guess the judge’s assessment of whether the nature and scale of the document deletion is such as to make a fair trial impossible.”
The claim relates to alleged defamation in respect of eight articles published by the GNM and for alleged breach of data protection legislation.
GNM is defending the claim on the grounds of truth and public interest.
