Carole Cadwalladr

Arron Banks claims a High Court judgment shows that "falsely accusing someone of taking Russian money for Brexit doesn't cut the ice".

Mr Banks congratulated Ms Cadwalladr on her win, but added that it "leaves open for the journalist the excuse that she thought what she said was correct even though she had no facts". He also wanted an injunction against the comments' continued publication. Ms Cadwalladr had also apologised to Mr Banks, saying she accepted it was untrue to say he had told "untruths about a secret relationship he had with the Russian government" about accepting foreign money to fund an electoral campaign in breach of the law. In her ruling, the judge said: "Based on her investigation, Ms Cadwalladr had reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Banks had been offered 'sweetheart' deals by the Russian government in the period running up to the EU referendum." Mr Banks argued that the remarks were "false and defamatory" and sought damages. Ms Cadwalladr, who writes for The Observer, spoke during a 2019 TED Talk about alleged "lies" Mr Banks told "about his covert relationship with the Russian government".

There must be more protection for people who keep us informed, says former Guardian crime correspondent Duncan Campbell.

But the Defamation Act of 2013, which brought in the very welcome “public interest” defence which Steyn accepted, also ended the right to a jury trial in libel cases. There is another upcoming case also of great relevance to journalism and the right to know, due for a November trial. We were very lucky that in those days there was a jury and they came down in favour of the Guardian. The Police Federation ended up with a bill of about £700,000. The government makes much of the “cancel culture” that it seeks now to challenge, but what about the cancel culture of the libel courts, where you either apologise and pay up or fight and risk bankruptcy? The decision was that of a brave and independent judge, Mrs Justice Steyn. But here, a word of caution: there is no guarantee that others will be as public spirited. The judgment in favour of Carole Cadwalladr in the libel action brought against her by the multimillionaire Brexit backer Arron Banks is both extremely welcome and vitally important.

Leave.EU founder tweets after ruling: 'I won the only thing that mattered Brexit!'

Start your Independent Premium subscription today. Another judge previously found that the meaning of Ms Cadwalladr’s statements is “that, on more than one occasion, Mr Banks told untruths about a secret relationship he had with the Russian government in relation to the acceptance of foreign funding of electoral campaigns in breach of the law on such funding”. The judge found that the tweet Mr Banks complained about had not caused “serious harm” to his reputation, but decided that, if she had, she would have concluded Ms Cadwalladr’s belief that the tweet was in the public interest was also reasonable. In her ruling, Mrs Justice Steyn said: “Based on her investigation, Ms Cadwalladr had reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Banks had been offered ‘sweetheart’ deals by the Russian government in the period running up to the EU referendum, although she had seen no evidence he had entered into any such deals; and Mr Banks’s financial affairs, and the source of his ability to make the biggest political donations in UK history, were opaque.” Meanwhile, Ms Cadwalladr – who has investigated the funding of the referendum campaigns and alleged misuse of data in relation to them – said she was “so profoundly grateful and relieved” by the ruling. The High Court understood Mr Banks to be complaining about Ms Cadwalladr claiming he had not been honest about secret dealings with the Russian state in relation to the “acceptance of foreign funding of electoral campaigns in breach of the law on such funding”.

Judge rules Guardian journalist successfully established public interest defence under Defamation Act. Journalist Carole Cadwalladr arrives at the Royal ...

“We believe this case was an example of a powerful wealthy person targeting an individual journalist for their work,” they said. In a tweet, Banks said he was likely to appeal. This was never about seeking to silence criticism.

Mr Banks sought damages and an injunction to restrain continued publication of the remarks, but Mrs Justice Steyn at the High Court on Monday dismissed his ...

The NCA, which conducted an investigation after an Electoral Commission referral, found no evidence of criminal offences. “I am so profoundly grateful and relieved,” said the journalist. Mr Banks claimed the journalist had “crossed the line” with untrue allegations of a “secret relationship with the Russian government in the context of illegal foreign money”. He was questioned about a visit to the Russian ambassador’s residence in London in November 2015, a meeting with a Russian businessman, and a lunch at the ambassador’s residence in November 2016 after President Trump’s victory.