THE multimillionaire Brexiteer Arron Banks has lost a libel case he launched against a journalist who accused him of lying about his relationship with Russia.
Banks, who funded the Leave.EU campaign group, sued the Observer and Guardian journalist Carole Cadwalladr (below, far right) after she twice said the businessman had covered up links with the Kremlin.
She made the claims once in a Ted Talk and again in a tweet but has been cleared of having libelled the multimillionaire.
Justice Steyn found the journalist had not caused "serious harm" to Banks' reputation in the tweet and that she had grounds in the public interest for making the claim.
READ MORE: Keir Starmer faces Parliament probe over potential breach of earnings rules
A summary published by the court said that while Banks had been cleared of criminality by his backing of the Leave.EU campaign amid concerns he had not been the true source of an £8 million donation, the Ted Talk had also failed to damage his reputation.
Her lawyer Gavin Millar QC had said the libel action had been an attempt to silence her.
Cadwalladr had unusually been targeted personally for libel, rather than the publications for which she writes.
She would have been responsible for recompensing Banks’ legal costs if his challenge had been successful – estimated as being between £750,000 and £1 million – as well as damages.
Cadwalladr has risen to prominence as a journalist for exploring issues such as campaign finance, social media and the Brexit referendum.
Welcoming the judgement in her favour, Cadwalladr tweeted on Monday: "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."
Keith Mathieson, a partner at RPC, the legal firm which represented Cadwalladr, said: "Today's judgment is an important vindication not just of Carole, but of the right of everyone to express themselves freely on matters of public interest.
"The judge undertook a highly detailed and careful examination of what Carole said in the statements Mr Banks sued on and rightly found that Carole was entitled to say what she honestly and reasonably believed based on years of investigation.
"The judgment gives significant support to the public interest defence in the law of defamation and the protection it offers journalists, bloggers and others to contribute to public debate on serious issues."
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel