We are on the ground to assist journalists in danger. To be absolutely clear: this is a minor skirmish. Arron Banks accuses Carole Cadwalladr of not rectifying claims of Russian links, Arron Banks allowed to appeal over lost libel action against Carole Cadwalladr, Libel loss for Arron Banks gives welcome fillip to journalists, Arron Banks loses libel action against reporter Carole Cadwalladr, Test for press freedom as verdict due in Arron Banks libel case against Carole Cadwalladr, Cadwalladr reports on Arron Banks Russia links of huge public interest, court hears, Arron Banks may have been used and exploited by Russia, court hears, Arron Bankss lawsuit against reporter a freedom of speech matter, court hears, Guardians Cadwalladr in court to fight defamation claim by Brexit backer Banks, Arron Banks drops two parts of libel claim against Carole Cadwalladr, he lost a high court case brought personally against Cadwalladr, a significant decision for public interest journalism. We welcome the dismissal of the other two grounds of appeal which are important points of principle. The appeal court judges found in Ms Cadwalladrs favour on two points, but ruled in favour of Mr Banks on one matter, the continued publication of the Ted Talk after 29 April 2020. [23] In addition, the ICO (Information Commissioner's Office) found Leave.EU had broken data laws but Arron Banks was not held personally responsible. However, The Times did not know that Mr. Wylie had later secured an unidentified financial backer to cover his potential legal costs, the spokeswoman said. Arron Banks' relentless pursuit of an individual journalist is not only a clear attempt to intimidate and discredit her personally, but also a chilling warning to other journalists of what can happen if they dare to take on the rich and powerful. Though the High Court did not consider the case to be a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), RSF and the wider UK anti-SLAPP coalition. [20], On 6 November 2020 while the libel case continued, Cadwalladr deleted and apologised for a recent tweet in which she claimed that Banks had broken the law. (Speaking of Twitter,I noticed that Banks once tweeted that Ukraine is to Russia as the Isle of Wight is to the UK. Only 1 a week after your trial. List the pet name(s) you are interested in, listing them in order of preference. Eventually, she was introduced to Christopher Wylie, the pink-haired former staffer who would, over time, become famous for blowing the whistle on its practices, saying he felt a huge amount of shame about the data he weaponized in 2016. Journalist Carole Cadwalladr recently appeared in court in London to defend herself against an accusation of defamation brought by Arron Banks, the multi-millionaire businessman and outspoken. Ms Cadwalladrs reporting into this matter of vital public interest has been vindicated., Original reporting and incisive analysis, direct from the Guardian every morning. Interest Form for Pre-Approved Applicants. The Labour Party did not respond to a request for comment, saying it never comments publicly about staff. The High Court judgement "is an important vindication" for Ms Cadwalladr, said the journalist's legal team. Five years on, its a line the people of Ukraine are dying in their tens of thousands to refute.). We have resumed our in person adoption events. Andy Wigmore, a spokesman for Banks, did not respond to a request for comment for this story. Update: Carole Cadwalladr has disputed the fairness and accuracy of this article as follows: Then just 1 a week for full website and app access. When is Eurovision and how do you get tickets? One of the questions raised in this case is why, amidst all the thousands of articles and broadcasts about Brexit, Arron Banks and Russia, did a few sentences in a TED talk and a tweet lead to a libel trial? She will continue to defend the claim and we anticipate that the case will be heard at trial next year". Some of Cadwalladrs online criticsaresaying that this verdict will reinforce the belief of centrist fanatics that Brexit was caused by a Russian hybrid warfare operation. Her behaviour has in fact been far more damaging to this country and the journalistic trade than Haris ever was. 7,702 followers. If she is wrong, then both her Brexit-Trump-Russia narrative and her career will be in trouble. Ms Cadwalladr had to rely on 29,000 people who contributed to her legal defence fund. For the courts to rule on a passing remark she made in a 2019 TED talk and a tweetabout the Leave.EU tycoon, who gave the pro-Brexit campaign the largest donation in British political history, has cost Banks somewhere between 750,000 and 1 million. And she has been good at it, radicalizing those who support Britains staying in the EU; she has been lauded in Parliament, and several prominent lawmakers have joined in her call. Adopt a Declawed Cat. The UK government must act to protect journalists against such abuse of the law. And they had broken it." Nevertheless, it is worth noting the toll such a case can take on an individual. From the bottom of my heart. The severity of this countrys defamation laws and the cost of fighting a case make the high court a casino in which too often only the very wealthy can afford to play. Firstly, it should be noted that the campaign of defamation which Cadwalladr has engaged in over recent years has been poisonous. Instead, my quest for the facts was vindicated, Original reporting and incisive analysis, direct from the Guardian every morning. Feel free to CONTACT US if you have any questions. It is quite another that a distinguished award for journalism should continue to encourage such behaviour. A.R.F. Cadwalladr's lawyers had argued this meant there were reasonable grounds to investigate. A SLAPP is a "strategic lawsuit against public participation" and is a phrase to describe the way in which the wealthy and powerful can threaten critics with often frivolous lawsuits that they cannot afford to contest. We are meant to have the rule of law in England and Wales. Search. She says she was not informed who the backer was, and did not mention the issue in her articles. Is Cadwalladr even a reporter, or more of a campaigneran activist with policy goals she is pursuing through journalism? 4,438,446 views | Carole Cadwalladr TED2019 Like (133K) Share Add Facebook's role in Brexit -- and the threat to democracy In an unmissable talk, journalist Carole Cadwalladr digs into one of the most perplexing events in recent times: the UK's super-close 2016 vote to leave the European Union. In June, in a significant decision for public interest journalism, Mrs Justice Steyn found that although Cadwalladrs words were, as interpreted by the judge, untrue, she had a public interest defence under section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013, which protects journalists against inaccuracies they reasonably believe to be true when investigating matters of great import. Nick Cohen is the author of What's Left and You Can't Read This Book. Mr Banks claimed he was defamed after comments Ms Cadwalladr made about his relationship with the Russian state. Mr Banks, a major funder to . If you want evidence for the mess it has caused, just look around you. Would Biden punish Sunak for pulling out of the ECHR? EU and Arron Banks insurance firm fined 120,000 for data breaches", "Carole Cadwalladr drops truth defence in Arron Banks libel battle but insists claims were in public interest", "Statement on libel claim against Carole Cadwalladr", "Libel loss for Arron Banks gives welcome fillip to journalists", "Arron Banks allowed to appeal over lost libel action against Carole Cadwalladr", "Covid-19's rebel scientists: has iSAGE been a success? Or Seymour Hersh, a former star dented and dimmed after a series of questionable claims? In the talk, she said: "And I am not even going to get into the lies that Arron Banks has told about his covert relationship with the Russian government.". She had said as an aside in a TED talk entitled Facebooks role in Brexit and the threat to democracy that: I am not even going to get into the lies that Arron Banks has told about his covert relationship with the Russian Government, and repeated much the same in a follow-up tweet. [26], On 13 June 2022, Banks lost the case. [27] On 24 June 2022 the High Court granted Banks leave to appeal on a question of law relating to the 'serious harm' test. Carole Cadwalladr's Age. The prevalence of such cases has earned London a reputation as the libel capital of the world and damages the UKs record on press freedom. The word SLAPP was raised during the trial. Robert Muellers investigation into Trump fell short of alleging the presidents campaign engaged in a full-blown conspiracy with Russia. I won the case. The paper actually wrote about Cambridge Analytica before she did, but failed to capitalize on a 2015 scoop revealing the firm was harvesting Facebook data. (The NCA, which concluded its investigation following publication of this article, ultimately cleared Banks; a separate police investigation into Leave. On this Wikipedia the language links are at the top of the page across from the article title. For three years, as a friend and colleague ofCadwalladrs, Ive seen howlawyers have dominated herlife. T, o be absolutely clear: this is a minor skirmish. The journalist's successful defence is a testament to her courage and a warning to the very wealthy that they can't rely on the courts to escape criticism Carole Cadwalladr outside the Royal. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) reiterates its support for Cadwalladr, an RSF Press Freedom Prize laureate, and calls on the UK government to do more to protect journalists from lawsuits aimed at silencing public interest reporting. Perhaps it is necessary to say at this point that I have never met either Banks or Cadwalladr and have no special love for either of them. [24], On 26 November 2020, the day before a strike-out hearing, the Press Gazette reported that she "has been ordered to pay 62,000 in costs to Banks after withdrawing her defences of truth and limitation just one day before the next hearing in the case was scheduled to take place on Thursday morning", in the light of the judge's determination of the meaning of certain words. She and her friends pumped poisonous toxins into post-2016 Britain, from a position of considerable privilege and with some serious financial backing of their own. Discussion of Russian influence on British politics was chilled, not only by Bankss action but by the Kremlins pet energy company Rosneft and severalRussian billionaires suing Catherine Belton and the publishers of Putins People; a post-Soviet mining conglomerates action against Tom Burgis and the publishers of his study of kleptocracy; and the general fear the lawyers incubate that if you take on the super-rich you risk losing everything. Carole Cadwalladr, the journalist who exposed how Cambridge Analytica harvested data from 87 million Facebook users and subsequently influenced both the Brexit vote and the election of Donald . In its judgement of 28 February, the Court of Appeal dismissed two of Banks grounds for appeal, but allowed a third which claimed the TED talk could potentially have caused Banks serious harm .