Arron Banks loses libel case over journalist Carole Cadwalladr’s Russia claims

Arron Banks, the multimillionaire Brexit campaigner, has lost a libel action case against the investigative journalist Carole Cadwalladr in what has been seen as a victory for press freedom.

Banks, founder of the pro-Brexit campaign group Leave.EU, sued the freelance reporter, who writes for The Guardian and The Observer, personally for defamation over comments she made about his relationship with the Russian state.

Cadwalladr suggested he was lying about his links with Russia in a TED talk in April 2019 and a tweet she later posted which included a link to the talk.

After a five-day hearing in January the High Court has ruled in her favour. The judgment concluded: “The defendant therefore succeeded in establishing a public interest defence under s.4 Defamation Act 2013.”

Writing on Twitter, Cadwalladr said that the news “hasn’t sunk in yet”. She added: “I am so profoundly grateful and relieved. Thank you to the judge, my stellar legal team and the 29,000 people who contributed to my legal defence fund. I literally couldn’t have done it without you.”

Banks has said he is “likely” to appeal against the court judgment but congratulated Cadwalladr on her victory.

He tweeted: “It leaves open for the journalist the excuse that she thought what she said was correct even though she had no facts.”

Carole Cadwalladr has avoided a bill for legal costs estimated at between £750,000 and £1 million

AP

Gavin Millar QC, Cadwalladr’s lawyer, argued that the case was an attempt to silence the journalist’s reporting on “matters of the highest public interest” and campaigners for free speech and press freedom said it was a clear example of a strategic lawsuit against public participation (Slapp) — an attempt to shut down public criticism.

However, in her ruling the judge found that Banks’s case was not an example of Slapp (strategic lawsuits against public participation) and said to describe it as such would be “neither fair nor apt”.

In winning the case Cadwalladr has avoided a hefty bill for Banks’s costs, which were estimated at between £750,000 and £1 million.

During the TED talk, which has been viewed by more than five million people since it was first broadcast online in April 2019, Cadwalladr referred to Banks and the “lies” that he had told “about his covert relationship with the Russian government”.

Banks claimed the comments were “false and defamatory” and sought damages and an injunction to restrain the continued publication of the remarks, which are still available to view online.

Mrs Justice Steyn dismissed Banks’s claim, concluding that the journalist held a “reasonable belief” that her comments were in the public interest.

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 … and Mr Banks’s financial affairs, and the source of his ability to make the biggest political donations in UK history, were opaque.”

She concluded: “Although Ms Cadwalladr made clear that she did not understand offshore structures, in essence she drew the conclusion that his finances were opaque and it was unclear where he had derived sufficient funds to be able to donate as much as he had to the Brexit campaign.

“Those limited conclusions that she drew from the wide range of articles she read, and financial journalists and experts she spoke to on this topic, were reasonable.

“In all the circumstances, I find that the defendant has established that her belief that publishing the TED talk was in the public interest was reasonable.”

The judge found that the tweet Banks complained about had not caused “serious harm” to his reputation, but she said that even if it had, she would also have concluded that Cadwalladr’s belief that the tweet was in the public interest was reasonable.

However, she rejected claims that Banks’s case was an attempt to censor public criticism. Steyn said: “Although Mr Banks’s claim has failed, his attempt to seek vindication through these proceedings was, in my judgment, legitimate. In circumstances where Ms Cadwalladr has no defence of trust, and her defence of public interest has succeeded only in part, it is neither fair not apt to described this as a Slapp suit.”

The ruling has been welcomed as a victory for public interest journalism and press freedom.

Michelle Stanistreet, general secretary of the National Union of Journalists, said: “This is the right result, and the NUJ and all journalists will welcome the judgment and feel relieved that Carole has won this case. However, she should never have been put in the position of having to go through such a long and arduous ordeal.

“No journalist should be targeted and subjected to legal action in this way. This type of lawfare is cynical and targeted, pursued by those with deep pockets in a manner intended to pile as much pressure on an individual as possible.

“Carole’s journalistic career has been dedicated to investigative reporting that is squarely in the public interest — legal practices that are designed to stymie and thwart journalistic investigations and reporting need to be closed down.

“As part of our work campaigning against Slapps, the NUJ is calling for the introduction of a clear statutory public interest defence and a series of other measures to ensure that investigative reporting in the public interest is protected from those that seek to undermine journalists and journalism.”

Paul Webster, editor of The Observer, and Katharine Viner, Guardian News & Media editor-in-chief, welcomed the verdict as “an important victory for free speech and public-interest reporting”, and condemned the online trolling, abuse and harassment Cadwalladr had faced. “We believe this case was an example of a powerful wealthy person targeting an individual journalist for their work,” they said.

“Carole Cadwalladr’s victory in this case is an important step in defending the rights of journalists to report in the public interest.”