The Guardian’s sources for sexual misconduct allegations against Noel Clarke feared an honorary award from Bafta would make him “untouchable” and increase the severity of his behaviour, the high court has heard.
Sirin Kale, a co-author of the series of articles about the Doctor Who actor, said she did not believe that the sources collectively decided “they wanted to damage Clarke’s reputation”, as he claims.
She wrote in her witness statement: “They were scared that Mr Clarke being given the outstanding British contribution to cinema award by the British Academy of Film and Television Arts (Bafta) would boost Mr Clarke’s power over others and allow him to abuse and exploit people, potentially with a sense of impunity …
“The view they conveyed to us on the call was that Mr Clarke could become untouchable with the endorsement of the award, and his alleged behaviour could escalate in severity.”
Giving evidence on Thursday in Clarke’s libel claim against Guardian News and Media (GNM), Kale told the court she did not know who Clarke was when she was first approached to work on an investigation into him.
Philip Williams, representing Clarke, put to Kale that none of Clarke’s accusers were black but she rejected that characterisation.
The journalist told the court that she had spoken to “multiple women” who were black or mixed race who did not consent to their names being used in the article “and felt that it was difficult to speak publicly about such matters because Mr Clarke was … a successful black man”.
In her witness statement she cited Pelumi Akindude, a former Bafta employee whose allegations were published in the first Guardian article, telling Kale that her decision to speak up was one “she had carefully considered, as a black woman who was aware of the many obstacles Mr Clarke had overcome to achieve success in the industry”.
The journalist said she personally spoke to more than 70 direct and corroborative sources for the investigation but many of the allegations were not published.
“In particular I recall a video call with a source who was physically shaking,” she wrote in her witness statement.
“This source later called me following publication of the first article, having a panic attack triggered by her memories of Mr Clarke, and I spent around 30 minutes trying to calm her down.”
Kale was asked about views expressed by one of the initial sources, the actor and director James Krishna Floyd, with respect to Clarke’s worthiness for the honorary award.
The court heard a phone call in which Krishna Floyd, talking to the then head of Bafta, Krishnendu Majumdar, described Clarke as an “arsehole”. He questioned why Bafta had given him an award and speculated that it was because he was black and working class.
Williams said the contents of the call, heard by Kale during the investigation, should have raised concerns that Krishna Floyd, a 2013 Bafta Breakthrough Brit, harboured “animosity” and “professional jealousy” towards the writer-producer of the Kidulthood trilogy.
She replied: “I don’t think he [Krishna Floyd] expressed himself very well there. They are not comments I agree with.”
She continued: “I don’t think James was professionally jealous of Mr Clarke. I think James had heard many concerns from women in the industry about Mr Clarke’s behaviour and so James did not like Mr Clarke very much … I think he felt Noel’s body of work did not merit the award he received.”
Source: theguardian.com
