Arron Banks loses libel action against reporter Carole Cadwalladr

Nero said:
Pretty sure he has too. If Cadwallendr lost she would have had to pay between £850k and a million. With the massive cuts to legal aid from the Tories the price for justice is almost impossible for many people.
Click to expand...
He won't care, he can afford it. This why anti-SLAPP legislation is needed urgently.
 
It's excellent news but, until the law is changed, those who use SLAPPS will mark this down as a qualified win. They're not bothered about the cash. The public ordeal that Carole C has gone through will make other journalists (and their publishing platforms) think more than twice before criticising the powerful and litigious. That's the purpose of SLAPPS.
 
She's great, and this will be an important case for years to come but I can't help feeling that the Judge's verdict is quite fuzzy and leaves the case open for a big appeal.

The orchestrated sexist, mysoginistic campaign against her on social media was clearly starting to take its toll, as I thought she was starting to let it all get to her during the course of this year and she has put her foot in it on a few occasions, but if you're cheering on Arron Banks you're on the opposite of the argument to me.
 
BoroMart said:
Brilliant, it was a clear case of SLAPP and that poor women has been through emotional hell, because a Machiavellian bully didn't like being exposed in the media, didn't want the truth about him and brexit in the public eye.
Click to expand...

Paragraph 9 of the judgement

"Ms Cadwalladr has repeatedly labelled this claim a SLAPP suit, that is a strategic lawsuit against public participation, designed to silence and intimidate her. I have set out a summary of my conclusions in paragraph 416 below. Although, for the reasons I have given, Mr Banks’s claim has failed, his attempt to seek vindication through these proceedings was, in my judgment, legitimate. In circumstances where Ms Cadwalladr has no defence of truth, and her defence of public interest has succeeded only in part, it is neither fair nor apt to describe this as a SLAPP suit."
 
People really need to read the judgement.

It wasn't a SLAPP case. Aaron was defamed and suffered serious harm. Carole didn't tell the truth about him.

The key points are that when she thought she was telling the truth, she had a public interest defence. That defence ceases when she realises she wasn't being truthful in April 2020, but the damage was already done so there was no further serious harm that was actionable.

Before you all pile on: I'm not defending Aaron Banks in any way, and I hate the guy as much as anyone else. I just think people should read the judgement so they understand exactly what it is they are commenting on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top