Doctor Who star Noel Clarke was arrested during a five-hour raid of his house – days after defeat in his sex abuse libel case.
Officers went to the 49-year-old BBC actor’s family home in Kensington, west London, just before 9am, with a specialist dog unit used in the search.
Clarke’s arrest this morning follows his failed libel case against the Guardian newspaper. It is not known why he was arrested.
At the six-week civil case, more than 12 women gave evidence alleging they were sexually abused or harassed by the actor.
Police spent at least five hours at his home on Thursday, with officers seen leaving with boxes containing laptops and documents.
Clarke was then in custody for questioning, it is understood. The Daily Mail has contacted Met Police for more information.
The star must pay at least £3million of the Guardian publisher’s legal costs after pursuing a ‘far-fetched’ and ‘false case’ against the newspaper’s reporting of allegations of sexual misconduct, a High Court judge ruled on Monday.
The shamed star sued Guardian News and Media (GNM) over seven articles and a podcast, including one in April 2021 that said 20 women who knew him professionally had come forward with allegations of misconduct.
Doctor Who star Noel Clarke was arrested during a five-hour raid of his house today today after his sex abuse libel case
Clarke denied the claims, and his lawyers previously said the newspaper had acted as the ‘judge, jury and executioner’ of his career.
GNM defended its reporting as being both true and in the public interest and in a judgment last month, judge Mrs Justice Steyn agreed.
At a High Court hearing on Monday, she said Clarke must pay £3million ahead of a detailed assessment into the total costs to be recovered, estimated to be more than £6million.
‘It seems to me that the sum of £3million sought by the defendant is appropriate and no more than what ought to be reasonably ordered in this case,’ she said.
‘It is substantially lower than the defendant’s likely level of recovery on detailed assessment and so in my judgment, it does allow for a suitably wide margin of error.’
‘The claimant maintained a far-fetched and indeed a false case that the articles were not substantially true, by pursuing allegations of dishonesty and bad faith against almost all of the defendant’s truth witnesses.’
