QB-2022-001397 - [2025] EWHC 2193 (KB)

The Guardian gave notice of its intention to rely on the statements of ‘Maya’ and ‘Sophia’ as hearsay evidence when serving their statements on 5 December 2024. Subsequently, on 13 March 2025, the Guardian indicated that Stuart Wright was unable to attend, and so his statement is also relied on as hearsay.

Their statements are admissible. I address the reasons that ‘Sophia’ and ‘Maya’ have given for their non-attendance, and the weight to be given to their evidence (having regard to s.4 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995), in the context of the allegations which they address and the corroborative or conflicting evidence.

Mr Wright’s first statement concerns Mr Clarke’s alleged behaviour on ‘Production D’, about which Mr Sherlock gave evidence concerning ‘Isla’. Mr Wright said that, in 2013, he worked alongside Mr Sherlock as the sound mixer on ‘Production D’. He said the women on the production crew (who he believed, but was uncertain, were Jenna Wrage and ‘Isla’) had complained “about Noel because he was being creepy”. In his second statement, dated 12 March 2025, Stuart Wright states:

“I am currently working as a sound mixer on a production called MobLand for Paramount+. We are currently trying to finish filming and the schedule has become more pressurised than anticipated, as well as being over a longer period than planned. The locations and scheduling change from time to time and will continue to do so. Filming is taking place in many different locations over this period, often from one day to another. The schedule requires me to work long days in many different locations over the coming weeks and to offer flexibility for scheduling changes.

I am unable to attend the trial for cross-examination as I am unable to take leave from this role without causing disruption to my team and the wider production.”

The fact that Mr Wright has not made himself available to be cross-examined inevitably lessens the weight that can be given to his evidence. The hearsay notice in relation to Mr Wright was given by the Guardian too late for an application for a summons to be made. Moreover, the key paragraph of Mr Wright’s first statement is itself recounting a vague allegation that Mr Clarke was “being creepy” which he says was given to him by others. In the circumstances, I give no weight to that part of his evidence, but I accept his evidence (which accords with Mr Clarke’s evidence) that the work on ‘Production D’ took place in 2013.