The victory of the freelance journalist and Guardian and Observer contributor Carole Cadwalladr over the businessman Arron Banks, in the libel case he brought against her, is a vindication of Ms Cadwalladr’s work and her supporters. It is also a victory for the wider cause of press freedom. The judgment handed down on Monday by Mrs Justice Steyn pointed to “proper allowance for editorial judgment” and the “special importance of expression in the political sphere”. It asserted that free expression of this nature is at the core of the concept of democracy.
Ms Cadwalladr’s defence at trial – that she believed statements she made in a Ted talk in April 2019, and in a related tweet, were in the public interest – was partly successful. But Mr Banks’s suit also failed on the grounds that he failed to establish that “serious harm” to his reputation was caused, or was likely to be caused, by Ms Cadwalladr’s talk during the second time period under consideration, from April 2020. It is highly significant, and good news for media organisations, that the court decided Ms Cadwalladr’s talk amounted to “political expression of high importance, and great public interest (in the strictest sense), not only in this country but worldwide”.
That is because its subject matter, which built on Ms Cadwalladr’s reporting for the Guardian and Observer, was so serious. This included whether the laws regulating election and referendum campaign expenditure in the UK, including foreign donations, are fit for purpose (Ms Cadwalladr argued that they are not); the regulation of online campaign tools such as targeted adverts; and whether data laws were breached during the EU referendum campaign. While the judge rejected the defendant’s characterisation of Mr Banks’s suit as a Slapp (strategic lawsuit against public participation), she noted the great stress placed upon Ms Cadwalladr by her cross-examination, and described her as “an honest witness”. While Mr Banks’s evidence was also described as mostly truthful, the judge found it to be “lacking in candour” in some aspects.
Ms Cadwalladr stated in a letter of apology to Mr Banks in March 2021 that there is no evidence that he accepted business deals offered to him via contacts at the Russian embassy. Her defence rested on a test of whether her belief that publication was in the public interest was “reasonable”. After setting out background including a speech by Theresa May warning that Russia was “meddling in elections”, Mrs Justice Steyn said that it was.
While this week’s decision should be welcomed, there is no room for complacency. News organisations and individual journalists face increasing attempts to restrict their freedom of manoeuvre, using privacy as well as libel laws. In February, Bloomberg News lost a landmark case brought by a US businessman who said reports that the company he worked for was being investigated in relation to corruption claims violated his privacy, since he had not been arrested or charged. Catherine Belton, the author of Putin’s People, was sued by multiple oligarchs. Sir Cliff Richard, who successfully sued the BBC for breach of privacy, is leading a campaign for anonymity for people suspected of sexual offences.
Ministers have promised to act, and are consulting on changes that would clamp down on the use of so-called lawfare. British journalism has been spared the chilling effect that would have resulted from a victory for Mr Banks. But Ms Cadwalladr’s triumph should not lead anyone to underestimate the threat.
