Aaron Banks Vs Carole Cadwalladr

[Dr Jekyll]

This libel case, Banks sued Cadwalladr for saying 'And I am not even going to get into the lies that Arron Banks has told about his covert relationship with the Russian government." in TED talk.

The BBC reports.

'Aaron Banks loses Russia libel case against Carole Cadwaladr.'

Guido Fawkes reports

'Judge ruled Cadawalladr defamed Banks, awards no damages'

It seems CC originally claimed her allegations were true, then agreed they were untrue but claimed they were in the public interest anyway.

The BBC reckons thee judge decided the claims did no harm to Bank's reputation, but said that if they had done they would still be in the public interest.

Guido's line is that the perceived lack of harm to Banks' reputation meant zero damages but doesn't mean he lost the case, quoting the judge as saying

Judge said:

Ms Cadwalladr has repeatedly labelled this claim a SLAPP suit, that is a strategic lawsuit against public participation, designed to silence and intimidate her. 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.

So who won? Anyone?

[Shnozz]

This chap is unbelievably slippery. No matter how much digging there is very little credible evidence as to the source of his wealth, or certainly to the extent of his donations.

[Gweeds]

Is that Guido as in professional drunk-driver and all-round sack of st Paul Staines?

They deserve each other. Banks is a nasty piece of work.

[Terminator X]

Wtf libelled but not damaged? How can that ever be the case?

TX.

[JagLover]

Guardian has more details

arron-banks-loses-libel-action-against-reporter-carole-cadwalladr-guardian-defamation-brexit-russia

I believe she dropped the defence of "truth" so it seems she conceded her claims were not true. He seems to have lost his attempt to claim damages.

So I guess it depends on how you spin it.

[Gweeds]

Terminator X said:

Wtf libelled but not damaged? How can that ever be the case?

TX.

He had to prove serious damage to his reputation. Something he's managed all by himself.

[deckster]

I interpret the result as saying "She couldn't prove in a court of law that what she said was true. But everybody thinks that you're a corrupt, lying sack of st anyway so it didn't actually do your reputation any harm".

Which is a little harsh but probably fair.

[Dr Jekyll]

deckster said:

I interpret the result as saying "She couldn't prove in a court of law that what she said was true. But everybody thinks that you're a corrupt, lying sack of st anyway so it didn't actually do your reputation any harm".

Which is a little harsh but probably fair.

But she accepted the allegation wasn't true. So it's difficult to see how it can be in the public interest to make it.

[ZedLeg]

I guess it could be the difference between being able to prove something is true in a legal sense but there's enough there for it to be notable as character background for Banks.

The continued decline of Banks and Farage's influence has been delightful to watch tbh.

[silentbrown]

This Aaron Banks?


He lost. Get over it.

[Countdown]

Another way to interpret it is that Banks lost, otherwise he wouldn't need to appeal.

[Shnozz]

ZedLeg said:

The continued decline of Banks and Farage's influence has been delightful to watch tbh.

I don’t disagree but sadly the lasting damage has been done by their influence, IMO.

[T6 vanman]

Whilst I have no great respect for Banks.

As I read it...
Cadwalladr (journalist) makes a libelous (unfounded and without evidence regarding Russian funding) claim about Banks then (when Electoral Commission rules Banks acted correctly - no case to answer) Cadwalladr concedes the story was made up (incorrect) .. Judge rules because the story was already in the public domain Bank's reputation was not affected by the story

It's a sort of slippery slope to allow a journalist to create a fantasy / fraudulent story and then not be held liable for libel due to the story being in the public domain

[matchmaker]

Dr Jekyll said:

This libel case, Banks sued Cadwalladr for saying 'And I am not even going to get into the lies that Arron Banks has told about his covert relationship with the Russian government." in TED talk.

The BBC reports.

'Aaron Banks loses Russia libel case against Carole Cadwaladr.'

Guido Fawkes reports

'Judge ruled Cadawalladr defamed Banks, awards no damages'

It seems CC originally claimed her allegations were true, then agreed they were untrue but claimed they were in the public interest anyway.

The BBC reckons thee judge decided the claims did no harm to Bank's reputation, but said that if they had done they would still be in the public interest.

Guido's line is that the perceived lack of harm to Banks' reputation meant zero damages but doesn't mean he lost the case, quoting the judge as saying

Judge said:

Ms Cadwalladr has repeatedly labelled this claim a SLAPP suit, that is a strategic lawsuit against public participation, designed to silence and intimidate her. 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.

So who won? Anyone?

Yes - the lawyers.

[fido]

T6 vanman said:

Whilst I have no great respect for Banks.

As I read it...
Cadwalladr (journalist) makes a libelous (unfounded and without evidence regarding Russian funding) claim about Banks then (when Electoral Commission rules Banks acted correctly - no case to answer) Cadwalladr concedes the story was made up (incorrect) .. Judge rules because the story was already in the public domain Bank's reputation was not affected by the story

It's a sort of slippery slope to allow a journalist to create a fantasy / fraudulent story and then not be held liable for libel due to the story being in the public domain

Agree. Didn't she get called out on the daily coronavirus briefings as well (search for The Spectator article) but deleted the Tweet? I'm all for journalism but putting out false statements means you risk being at the end of expensive lawyers ..

To be fair Aaron did 'congratulate' her .. "Congratulations to Carole on winning today, it leaves open for the journalist the excuse that she thought what she said was correct even though she had no facts. There are important points of law at stake here & we will likely appeal."

Edited by fido on Monday 13th June 14:40

[Siko]

Awful woman, awful man. I'm glad they both 'lost' even though Tw@tter seems to think she has won some mega victory......

[Countdown]

T6 vanman said:

Whilst I have no great respect for Banks.

As I read it...
Cadwalladr (journalist) makes a libelous (unfounded and without evidence regarding Russian funding) claim about Banks then (when Electoral Commission rules Banks acted correctly - no case to answer) Cadwalladr concedes the story was made up (incorrect) .. Judge rules because the story was already in the public domain Bank's reputation was not affected by the story

It's a sort of slippery slope to allow a journalist to create a fantasy / fraudulent story and then not be held liable for libel due to the story being in the public domain

If the story was already in the public domain then CC didn't make it up. Surely banks should have gone after whoever created it?

[Vanden Saab]

Dr Jekyll said:

deckster said:

I interpret the result as saying "She couldn't prove in a court of law that what she said was true. But everybody thinks that you're a corrupt, lying sack of st anyway so it didn't actually do your reputation any harm".

Which is a little harsh but probably fair.

But she accepted the allegation wasn't true. So it's difficult to see how it can be in the public interest to make it.

Lying is in the public interest says judge... amazing...

[Dr Jekyll]

Siko said:

Awful woman, awful man. I'm glad they both 'lost' even though Tw@tter seems to think she has won some mega victory......

This.

[T6 vanman]

Countdown said:

T6 vanman said:

Whilst I have no great respect for Banks.

As I read it...
Cadwalladr (journalist) makes a libelous (unfounded and without evidence regarding Russian funding) claim about Banks then (when Electoral Commission rules Banks acted correctly - no case to answer) Cadwalladr concedes the story was made up (incorrect) .. Judge rules because the story was already in the public domain Bank's reputation was not affected by the story

It's a sort of slippery slope to allow a journalist to create a fantasy / fraudulent story and then not be held liable for libel due to the story being in the public domain

If the story was already in the public domain then CC didn't make it up. Surely banks should have gone after whoever created it?

Sorry ... The story was already in the public domain due to the initial Jackonory created by CC