Those of us who saw Cadwalladr give passionate evidence at her trial in January were both impressed by her commitment to her investigations and by the fact that she was waging a battle that could lead to financial disaster. What will be the consequences of the decision, which coincides with the government’s promises to control the growing number of strategic lawsuits against public participation or the Slapps – where the rich use rigorous legal procedures to silence journalists? It must be said that the judge in this case said that it would not be “fair or appropriate” to describe Banks’s case as a Slapp suit and that the multimillionaire’s search for justice was “legal”. But there are still lessons to be learned. First, it will remind and should remind people, in the aftermath of the Depp v Heard and Vardy v Rooney cases, that slander is not a spectator sport, but serious cases concerning the right of journalists to report honestly to the public without fear. that their words will lead to long and absurdly costly cases against them. The government is creating much of the “culture of annulment” it now seeks to challenge, but what about the culture of annulment of slander courts, where you either apologize and pay or you fight and risk bankruptcy? The decision was made by a courageous and independent judge, Justice Steyn. But here, a word of caution: there is no guarantee that others will have the same spirit in public. Nearly 30 years ago, I wrote two articles for the Guardian about alleged corruption at the Stoke Newington Police Department in north London and we were sued for defamation by five police officers at the station. They had the financial backing of the Police Federation, which had won its previous 95 actions against the press, almost all of which were settled before the trial to avoid amputation costs. In our trial, the judge, the late Justice French, was completely sympathetic to the police. He told the jury that they could award each officer 125 125,000 in compensation. We were very lucky that in those days there was a jury and they came in favor of the Guardian. The Police Federation ended up with a bill of about 700,000 pounds. But the Defamation Act of 2013, which brought the very welcome “public interest” defense that Steyn accepted, also ended the right to a jury trial in defamation cases. Banks has stated that it can appeal. But if a less powerful judge had sat on Cadwalladr’s case, he could very well have celebrated the victory today. There is another upcoming case, also of great importance to journalism and the right to know, expected for a trial in November. John Ware, who made the BBC Panorama 2019 program Are Workers Anti-Semitic ?, is suing another journalist, Paddy France, for .000 50,000 for an article written by the French in response, entitled Is the BBC anti-labor? ;. Ware’s program for 2019 was highly critical of Jeremy Corbyn and his Labor allies, and the French response, in a pamphlet published by the Press Gang, disputed allegations in the program that Ware was involved in ” rogue journalism “. Both Ware and French are distinguished journalists with a history of crime detection – I have known French since the 1970s through his campaign with the Welsh magazine Rebecca – so why should this controversy become the subject of a slanderous act that has already cost hundreds of thousands of pounds? in legal costs? The issue may not be about the rights and mistakes of either the Panorama program or the response, but whether journalists, who have access to both radio and print media to defend themselves, should use slander lawyers to to resolve arguments. One of the most notorious acts of slander journo vs. journo in the last half century was filed in 1990 by Andrew Neil, then publisher of the Sunday Times, against the late Peregrine Worsthorne for an article in the Sunday Telegraph entitled Playboys as Editors, which made derogatory references. in Neil’s relationship with his then partner, Pamella Bordes. Neil won, but was awarded τική 1,000 in mock compensation after Judge Michael Davis told jurors the case could have involved “a lot of fuss about nothing”. Earlier this year, Neil wrote on Twitter, responding to someone urging him to sue another journalist on a different issue: “Journalists should not sue journalists. I did it once and it was a huge mistake. Never again.” New defamation laws are now urgently needed to challenge the defamation lottery. The National Union of Journalists is currently committed, in the words of its general secretary, Michelle Stanistreet, to seeking “low-cost arbitration solutions to resolve real disputes and [we] “It would welcome any move towards a level playing field and ensure that journalists and the media no longer have to face prohibitive costs.” We must celebrate Cadwalladr’s victory in the face of frightening and oppressive opportunities. This is her victory. It is also a public victory. But she should never have been in such a situation where her reference to the public interest put her in such personal danger. Defamation laws still need to be drastically reformed. In March, referring to Slapps and defamation plans, Boris Johnson said: “The ability of a free press to hold the powerful accountable is fundamental to our democracy, and as a former journalist I am determined that we should never allow criticism. to be silent “. Actions, not words, are what we desperately need now, not just from him.
