Posted at 6:00 a.m.
A libel suit brought by a wealthy English businessman against a star journalist in the country who suspected Russia played an underhand role in financing the campaign of Brexit supporters was cut short on Monday.
The decision in favor of Carole Cadwalladr, an employee of the Guardian and its weekly version The Observerwas hailed as a crucial victory by press freedom organisations, which are alarmed by the proliferation of “gag” procedures aimed at intimidating the media.
“It turns out that it is ultimately a bad day for bullies who want to prevent public interest reporting and a great day for freedom of expression,” commented Rebecca Vincent of Reporters Without Borders.
The businessman behind the lawsuit, Arron Banks, who was the main donor to the pro-Brexit camp, tempered this enthusiasm by noting that the judge in the case had recognized the harmful nature of a misleading statement by the journalist about her without condemning her for defamation.
“I imagine that accusing someone for no reason of having accepted Russian money for Brexit is not enough” to win the case, underlined the businessman, specifying that he would “probably appealed the decision to the High Court in London.
Notorious journalist
Mme Cadwalladr gained international notoriety after investigating Cambridge Analytica’s siphoning of data from Facebook and its role in former US President Donald Trump’s 2016 election campaign.
She has also written various articles on Brexit and Russia, questioning in particular the source of millions of euros injected by Mr. Banks from a firm established in a tax haven.
Rather than target the texts written in the newspapers, the businessman sued Mme Cadwalladr for comments made at a TED talk in April 2019 where she suggested he repeatedly lied about his “secret” ties to the Russian government.
PHOTO MARLA AUFMUTH, TED
Carole Cadwalladr, during her April 2019 TED Talk
He also targeted tweets from the journalist published a few months later in which she returned to the charge on this subject.
Acting at the request of the UK Electoral Commission, the UK’s Organized Crime Agency (NCA) investigated the source of eight million euros in funding – equivalent to C$10.7 million – advanced by Mr. Banks during the Brexit campaign before concluding in September 2019 that no crime had been committed.
The election commission accepted that finding in April 2020, complicating the journalist’s position in the libel suit.
Not really harmed
Renouncing to demonstrate embezzlement, his lawyers pleaded instead that Mr.me Cadwalladr believed she was acting in the public interest by questioning the role of Arron Banks as she did at her TED talk and that it was “reasonable” to think so when the NCA had no not yet concluded its investigation.
The judge finally agreed to dismiss the allegation of defamation while noting that the remarks were likely to harm the businessman. He also ruled that the tweets did not actually harm him.
The verdict was greeted with a huge sigh of relief on Monday by Mr.me Cadwalladr, who had to appeal for public support to finance his legal battle.
The fact that this case was able to go forward shows that libel laws favor rich and powerful people.
Carole Cadwalladr
The journalist also said she hoped “no other journalist will have to go through the ordeal” she went through.
Mme Vincent notes that it is imperative that the British authorities put forward laws protecting journalists against “SLAPPING lawsuits”.
In a report available online, the European Center for Press and Media Freedom warns that procedures of this type are multiplying in several countries on the continent because their importance and impact are not recognized, contrary to what we observe “in the United States, Canada and Australia”.
The European Commission introduced a directive at the end of April which should eventually lead to the prevention of this practice, in particular by allowing the courts to quickly dismiss proceedings when they are “manifestly abusive”.
The Commissioner for Justice, Didier Reynders, underlined on this occasion that it is essential that freedom of information be protected to allow a “healthy and dynamic democracy”.