Arron Banks loses two of three challenges to failed libel action against Carole Cadwalladr


 

On February 24, 2021, Arron Banks, a prominent Brexit supporter, lost two of the three challenges he brought against a failed libel action he brought against journalist Carole Cadwalladr. The legal case was widely regarded as a test case for freedom of the press, as Banks had sought to sue Cadwalladr for defamation over a series of articles she wrote for The Observer about his political activities.


The libel case centered on Cadwalladr's reporting on Banks' finances and alleged links to Russia during the 2016 Brexit referendum campaign. In her articles, Cadwalladr raised questions about the sources of Banks' funding and whether he had received financial support from the Russian government. Banks denied these allegations and launched a libel case against Cadwalladr in 2019, seeking £1 million in damages.


However, in July 2020, the case was dismissed by a High Court judge, who ruled that Cadwalladr's articles were protected by the principle of responsible journalism and that Banks had failed to prove that the allegations were untrue. Banks then launched a series of legal challenges against the judgment, including an appeal against the dismissal of his libel claim and a bid to have the judge recused from the case.


On February 24, 2021, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on Banks' challenges, ruling against him on two of the three grounds. The Court upheld the previous ruling that Cadwalladr's articles were protected by the principle of responsible journalism, stating that the judge had made no error in law in reaching this conclusion. The Court also rejected Banks' bid to have the judge recused, finding that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias.


However, the Court did allow Banks' appeal against the dismissal of his claim on one ground, stating that the judge had made an error in his approach to the evidence relating to Banks' contacts with Russian officials. The Court ruled that this issue would have to be reconsidered at a new trial, which may still take place in the future.


The outcome of this case is significant for several reasons. Firstly, it highlights the importance of freedom of the press and responsible journalism in a democratic society. The Court's decision to uphold the principle of responsible journalism affirms the right of journalists to report on matters of public interest without fear of legal retribution.


Secondly, the case underscores the challenges faced by journalists who report on powerful individuals and organizations. Cadwalladr faced a protracted legal battle and significant personal costs in defending her reporting, and the outcome of the case is a reminder of the importance of supporting investigative journalism and protecting the rights of journalists.


Finally, the case also raises questions about the role of social media and online disinformation in political campaigns. Cadwalladr's reporting on Banks' alleged links to Russia was based on an investigation into the use of social media by pro-Brexit campaigners during the 2016 referendum. The Court's decision to allow Banks' appeal on one ground highlights the need for continued scrutiny of the role of social media and foreign interference in democratic processes.


In conclusion, the Court of Appeal's ruling in the Arron Banks libel case is a significant victory for freedom of the press and responsible journalism. While Banks may still pursue a new trial on one issue, the decision to uphold the principle of responsible journalism is a reminder of the importance of protecting the rights of journalists to report on matters of public interest without fear of legal retribution.

Comments