Noel Clark was reportedly arrested over an allegation of voyeurism days after losing a £6million libel case with the Guardian newspaper.
The Doctor Who star, 49, was detained by police at his family home in Kensington, west London, and taken into custody for questioning last week.
Officers visited his home just before 9am on Thursday, along with a specialist dog unit, to conduct a search of the apartment.
They spent at least five hours combing through his home, with officers seen leaving with boxes containing laptops and documents.
The reason for Clarke’s arrest was unknown at the time, however The Sun has now claimed it was over an allegation of voyeurism against a woman in her 20s dating back to February 2013.
Clarke was supposedly held in custody for at least eight hours before being released on bail, the newspaper added.
The raid forms part of a wider investigation led by Central Specialist Crime Command, which began on September 1, according to the Guardian.
Last month, Clarke lost a libel case against the newspaper’s reporting of allegations of sexual misconduct against him and was ordered to pay at least £3million in legal costs by a High Court Judge.
Noel Clark (pictured) was reportedly arrested over an allegation of voyeurism days after losing a £6million libel case with the Guardian newspaper
Clarke shot to fame after portraying the role of Mickey Smith (left) alongside Billie Piper as Rose Tyler (right) in Doctor Who
The shamed star sued the Guardian’s publisher 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.
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.’
