The Observer
14 09.01.22 News
Performers stage a dragon dance
at Langzhong, in China’s Sichuan
province, as part of a series of
celebrations building up to the
start of the lunar new year – the
year of the tiger – which begins on
1 February.Wang Yugui/VCGSnapshot Observer writer
in court to fi ght
Brexit backer in
defamation case
The Observer and Guardian journal-
ist Carole Cadwalladr will appear in
court in London next Friday to defend
herself against an accusation of defa-
mation brought by Arron Banks , the
multi-millionaire businessman and
outspoken backer of Brexit. The case
concerns a remark made in a talk
at the Ted technology conference
by Cadwalladr in April 2019, and a
related tweet.
In the widely viewed 15-minute
talk about the pernicious effects of
Facebook on the democratic electoral
process, Cadwalladr spoke about the
2016 Brexit referendum and noted
briefl y that Nigel Farage’s Leave.EU
campaign, largely funded by £8m
from Banks, the largest donation in
British political history, had been
found by the Electoral Commission to
have broken electoral and data laws.
In two sentences Cadwalladr also
noted the commission’s investiga-
tion into the source of Banks’s fund-
ing, and made a passing reference
to the fi nancier “telling lies” about
what she called “his covert relation-
ship with the Russian government”.
A couple of months later, after Banks
had complained about the Ted talk
reference, she tweeted a further refer-
ence to Banks “lying” about his con-
tact with the Russian government.
Banks, who was subsequently
cleared of criminality in relation to
the donation , after an investigation by
the National Crime Agency, and who
has always strongly denied any illegal
Russian links – although he admits
meeting Russian embassy offi cials
on a number of occasions – has been
pursuing the case against Cadwalladr
for more than two years.
In a preliminary ruling in November
2019 on the meaning of Cadwalladr’s
words in the talk and tweet, Mr Justice
Saini concluded that an average lis-
tener would have understood that:
“On more than one occasion Mr
Banks told untruths about a secret
relationship he had with the Russian
government in relation to acceptance
of foreign funding of electoral cam-
paigns in breach of the law on such
funding.”
Banks, in his legal claim, says
this meaning is defamatory of him.
Cadwalladr has said this is not the
meaning she intended and that she
had always been careful to say there
was no evidence to suggest Banks had
accepted any money.
Although she initially defended the
claim on the basis of truth, limitation
and the public interest, the defences
of truth and limitation were with-
drawn after Mr Justice Saini set outthe meanings which he had found
the Ted talk and the tweet to bear.
Cadwalladr is now defending the
claim against her on the basis that her
reporting was in the public interest.
Cadwalladr, who has won numer-
ous awards for her investigative
reporting into the effects of big data
and social media on the Brexit cam-
paign and the election of Donald
Trump, reporting which led directly
to the American Federal Trade
Commission imposing a record $5bn
fi ne on Facebook , has spent much
of the past two years in effect off
work preparing her defence against
Banks’s suit. If Banks wins the case,
Cadwalladr may be personally liable
for his costs, estimated at between
£750,000 and £1m, together with any
resultant damages.
The case has been monitored
closely by several British investiga-
tive reporters, some of whom have
had their own libel litigation prob-
lems. There has also been support for
Cadwalladr from a number of press
freedom groups, concerned about
what they see as the potentially chill-
ing effect of a rich individual with a
high public profi le like Banks beingTim Adamsable to sue Cadwalladr, a freelance
journalist, in person, but not suing
the Ted organisation, which pro-
vided the platform for her talk, and on
whose website it can still be viewed.
When Banks fi rst brought his case
against Cadwalladr, seven press free-
dom groups, among them Reporters
Without Borders and Index On
Censorship, called for the case to be
thrown out and for the British gov-
ernment to defend public-inter-
est journalism. Their open letter
described the case as bearing many of
the hallmarks of a so-called Slapp suit- strategic lawsuits against public
participation – in which legal action
will inevitably be expensive and time
consuming for journalists to resist.
Paul Webster, editor of the
Observer, said: “Carole’s brave report-
ing has given the public deep insight
into the secretive ways powerful peo-
ple, organisations and social media
companies have sought to infl uence
our democracies and the hidden role
played by technology in using our
data and shaping our politics.
“We will continue to support the
rights of journalists like Carole to
report independently and in the pub-
lic interest.”
Journalist Carole
Cadwalladr says her
comments were in the
public interest.