It was ruled Monday that the independent reporter’s public defense was successful. The defamation allegation focused on comments made in a Ted Talk by Ms Cadwalladr and a subsequent tweet claiming that Banks – who launched the Leave.EU campaign – was lying about his relationship with Russia. The Supreme Court found Mr Banks complaining about Ms Cadwalladr, claiming she was not being honest about secret dealings with the Russian state about “accepting foreign campaign finance in violation of the law on such funding”. Mr Banks called Cadwalladr’s statements “false and defamatory” and demanded compensation and a restraining order against the publication of the remarks, which are still available on the Internet. Justice Steyn on Monday rejected the allegation on the grounds that the journalist had a “reasonable belief” that her comments were in the public interest. Following the ruling, Mr Banks wrote on Twitter: “I won the only thing that mattered to Brexit!” He also said: “Congratulations to Carole for today’s victory, leaving open to the journalist the excuse that he thought what he said was right, even though he had no evidence.” The main sponsor of Brexit added that he “probably” would make an appeal. Arron Banks founded the Leave.EU campaign team (Getty) Meanwhile, Ms Cadwalladr – who has been investigating the financing of the referendum campaigns and the alleged misuse of data in connection with them – said she was “so deeply grateful and relieved” by the decision. “I thank the judge, my excellent legal team and the 29,000 people who contributed to my legal fund. “I literally could not do it without you,” he wrote on Twitter. He added: “Fighting this was an overwhelming, exhausting, consuming experience that I sincerely hope no other journalist has to go through.” In her decision, Ms Justice Steyn said: “Based on her research, Ms Cadwalladr had good reason to believe that Mr Banks had been offered ‘favorite’ deals by the Russian government in the run-up to the referendum. EU, although it had seen no evidence that it had concluded such agreements. “Mr Banks’s financial affairs, and the source of his ability to make the largest political donations in the history of the United Kingdom, have been opaque.” The judge said Ms Cadwalladr had not approached Mr Banks for an answer before the speech, but had previously given him the right to respond to articles he had written on essentially the same subject. Businessman and co-founder of the Leave.EU campaign, Arron Banks (Getty Images) He added: “Although Ms Cadwalladr made it clear that she did not understand offshore structures, in fact she concluded that her finances were opaque and it was not clear where she had raised enough funds to donate what she had to the Campaign for Brexit. “These limited conclusions he drew from the wide range of articles he read and financial journalists and experts with whom he spoke on the subject were logical. “In all circumstances, I find that the defendant has demonstrated that her belief that the publication of the TED Speech was in the public interest was reasonable.” The judge found that Mr Banks’ tweet did not cause “serious damage” to his reputation, but concluded that if he did, he would have concluded that Ms Cadwalladr’s belief that the tweet was public interest was also reasonable. Another judge had previously ruled that Ms Cadwalladr’s statements had “the meaning of law on such funding “. Following this ruling in 2019, Ms Cadwalladr accepted that the concept identified by the judge was untrue, but continued to defend the case for reasons of public interest. Additional report from the Press Association
