Justice Steyn will deliver her decision by email on Monday morning. The decision will be the culmination of an often raging three-year court battle and could have a chilling effect on all British journalism. Banks, which donated a record 8 8m to the Brexit Leave.EU campaign, has sued Cadwalladr for defamation on two counts – one in a Ted video speech and another in a tweet – in which the businessman lied. for his own. relationship with the Russian state. After four days of hearings in January, Cadwalladr’s lawyer, Gavin Millar QC, closed the written remarks by claiming that the journalist’s report on the banks and the Russian state was the greatest public interest imaginable. Millar told the London High Court that Banks and his close associate Andy Wigmore, Leave.EU’s communications director, had made “contradictory and misleading reports about the [Banks’s] meetings with Russian officials and the extent of his relationship with the Russian state “as well as about who had orchestrated the contact with the Russian government and its speech. Cadwalladr’s defense is based on the long-standing journalistic principle of the public interest: specifically if it was “reasonable” for it to believe that the publication of such statements was in that interest. Proponents of her case have been working to make the actual transcript of this statement available online. Some press freedom groups have supported Cadwalladr, expressing concern about the wider consequences of a wealthy and prominent individual who chooses to sue an individual freelance journalist instead of focusing on the wider Observer and Guardian report, which the Ted provided the platform for her speech in April 2019 and on whose website it can still be viewed. Since Banks launched his defamation campaign, several organizations have called on the UK government to ensure that so-called “slaps” – strategic anti-public litigation – will not be used to discourage public interest reporting. Rebecca Vincent, director of operations and campaigns for Reporters Without Borders, said Banks’ slanderous act was “intended to discredit and isolate Cadwalladr and to send a clear warning to other journalists about what might happen next.” . “London stadiums should not be used as a playground for the rich to silence public interest reports. “Journalists must be free to do their job without fear of lengthy and costly litigation to cover certain issues or individuals.” Banks denied that he was suing Slapp, telling the court: “I was not sure how else they were waiting for me to correct the file and I certainly can not do it if he insists on being able to repeat false allegations.” Cadwalladr, which has won numerous awards for its coverage of controversial issues, has been the target of constant cyber-trolling, abuse and harassment, many of them ostensibly motivated by misogyny. Paul Webster, author of The Observer, which covered much of Cadwalladr’s journalism, including the Cambridge Analytica scandal, said: social media tried to influence us. democracies “. Webster described the trolling of Cadwalladr, winner of the Orwell Prize and Pulitzer Prize finalist, as “shameful” and lamented that she had endured years of cyberbullying and half-heartedness as a result of her work in setting the agenda. “Carole has been the victim of constant and shameful harassment, bigotry and personal threats on social media, many of which appear to be related to her reports on these issues,” she said. In his final written submissions, Millar said Cadwalladr’s report on weaknesses in the rules governing political campaign spending and accountability on social media targeting and advertising had raised issues that “threaten the integrity of democratic our procedures “. He said Ted’s speech at the heart of the slander, entitled Facebook’s role in Brexit – and the threat to democracy, addressed issues of “the greatest possible importance for the organization of the country’s political life”. In his widely publicized speech, Cadwalladr discussed the 2016 Brexit referendum and briefly mentioned that Nigel Farage’s Leave.EU campaign, which was largely funded by the Banks’s donation, the largest in British political history, had been found. by the Electoral Commission that he violated the electoral laws and the data laws. . Cadwalladr also makes a similar brief reference to the commission’s investigation into the source of the Banks’ funding and a passing remark to the financier that he “lies” about what he described as his “secret relationship with the Russian government”. A few months later – after Banks had complained about Ted’s speech – the journalist tweeted a further report to Banks “lying” about his contact with the Russian government. Banks, who has been acquitted of donation-related crime following an investigation by the National Crime Agency, has firmly and categorically denied any illegal Russian links, although he admits he has met with Russian embassy officials on several occasions. At a preliminary hearing in November 2019 on the meaning of Cadwalladr’s speeches and tweets, Justice Saini concluded that the average listener would have understood that: “In more than one case, Banks told lies about a secret relationship he had with the Russian government in connection with the acceptance of foreign funding for election campaigns in violation of the law on such funding. “ Banks, in his legal claim, says that meaning is defamatory. Cadwalladr said this was not the meaning she intended and that she was always careful to say that there was no evidence that the banks had accepted money. Cadwalladr initially defended the claim on the basis of truth, restraint and the public interest. Proponents of her case have been working to make the actual transcript of this statement available online. Webster added: “We will continue to support the rights of journalists like Carole to report independently and in the public interest.”
