The Observer view on Carole Cadwalladr and a victory for public interest journalism | Observer editorial

The journalist’s successful defence is a testament to her courage and a warning to the very wealthy that they can’t rely on the courts to escape criticism

The resolve displayed by Carole Cadwalladr in her successful defence against a libel action brought by Arron Banks calls to mind Hemingway’s definition of courage as “grace under pressure”. For years, this award-winning journalist had been investigating the role of social media in our democracy and the role that Facebook in particular had played in the Brexit referendum. Since Banks was a leading figure in – and a substantial donor to – the leave campaign, she had inevitably become interested in his finances, and in a Ted Talk in April 2019 referred briefly to him in 24 words and later said something similar in a tweet.

The context for the remark was that the Times, the Observer and other news outlets had been reporting how Mr Banks had, as one lawyer put it, “misled everyone about the number, and nature, of his covert meetings with Russian officials”.

A judge held that Cadwalladr’s words conveyed a meaning that she said she had not intended and indeed didn’t believe to be true. She dropped her defence of truth and relied on one of public interest. Banks could have sued the publisher of the Ted Talk for defamation, but it was Cadwalladr personally that he chose to sue.

The significance of this will not be lost on anyone with experience of libel actions in British courts. The severity of this country’s defamation laws and the cost of fighting a case make the high court a casino in which too often only the very wealthy can afford to play. The potential costs of defending a case can run into millions of pounds and can be enough to persuade many publishers, let alone individual journalists, to back down and settle without going to court. When Catherine Belton, author of Putin’s People, and HarperCollins, her publisher, were sued for libel in 2021 by several oligarchs, including Roman Abramovich and a Russian oil company, she told MPs that her case had cost the publisher £1.5m in legal fees to defend and could have cost £5m if the case had gone to trial. (In the end, the cases were settled or withdrawn.)

These chilling realities, when combined with the complexity of defending a case under UK libel laws, explain why British journalists are reluctant to publish information about wealthy or powerful individuals. It takes courage to take risks – as Cadwalladr did – that could result in personal bankruptcy. As she herself says, the personal, physical, psychological and professional toll for her of fighting the case has been profound. That is why Robert Maxwell, a corrupt and litigious media tycoon, could escape critical media examination until he drowned after looting the pension fund of his publishing empire. Until recently, many London-based Russian oligarchs used the same strategy to intimidate journalists and authors.

The most positive outcome of the Banks case is the evolution of judicial thinking on what constitutes a public interest defence. The judge decided that, in light of Cadwalladr’s formidable investigative persistence, all the things she had unearthed about Banks, his finances and his meetings with Russian officials, it was reasonable to believe that it was in the public interest to have said what she did. This judgment is a triumphant vindication of a formidable journalist who endured unconscionable personal stress and misogynistic abuse to get her stories out. And it leaves the rest of us in her debt.


Observer editorial

The GuardianTramp

Related Content

Article image
Arron Banks loses libel action against reporter Carole Cadwalladr
Judge rules Guardian journalist successfully established public interest defence under Defamation Act

Haroon Siddique Legal affairs correspondent

13, Jun, 2022 @11:49 AM

Article image
How our laws inspired Trump’s attack on free speech | Nick Cohen
Hard-won press freedoms are under attack on both sides of the Atlantic

Nick Cohen

03, Dec, 2016 @6:15 PM

Article image
The Observer view on the formidable career and legacy of Sir Harold Evans | Observer editorial
The truth-seeking national newspaper editor was a giant who inspired a generation of journalists

Observer editorial

27, Sep, 2020 @5:15 AM

Article image
The Observer view on Hugh McIlvanney, a poet in print who brought sport alive | Observer editorial
The late Observer journalist elevated sports reporting into an art form

Observer editorial

26, Jan, 2019 @4:59 PM

Article image
The Observer view on campaign funding and election cheats | Observer editorial
After the manipulated Brexit debate, we must wake up to the threat of social media campaigns and the risk of foreign meddling

Observer editorial

04, Nov, 2018 @5:59 AM

Article image
Carole Cadwalladr’s victory over Arron Banks is great news, but our libel laws need reform | Duncan Campbell
There must be more protection for people who keep us informed, says former Guardian crime correspondent Duncan Campbell

Duncan Campbell

13, Jun, 2022 @4:02 PM

Article image
After Cliff Richard, what price privacy and the public’s right to know? | Alan Rusbridger
Mr Justice Mann’s judgment was more nuanced than some of his critics allowed

Alan Rusbridger

22, Jul, 2018 @5:00 AM

Article image
The Observer view on George Osborne as editor of the Evening Standard
The ex-chancellor is walking into a minefield of his own making

Observer editorial

19, Mar, 2017 @12:05 AM

Article image
The readers’ editor on repressive regimes and press freedom | Stephen Pritchard
As human rights abuses in Egypt increase, the government is labelling the journalists who try to tell the truth as terrorists

Stephen Pritchard

10, Dec, 2017 @12:05 AM

Article image
The Observer view on our new tabloid format | Observer editorial
From the French revolution to Brexit, this newspaper has put itself at the heart of the issues of the moment, whatever its size

Observer editorial

21, Jan, 2018 @12:03 AM