Late adopter. Late giver-upper. Guardian & Observer writer. Co-founder @allthecitizens & @fboversight. Still being sued by Arron Banks.

Joined July 2012
You have not been sued for libel. I have. There are many things I have wanted to say in the last 6 weeks of #DeppvHeard But I haven't. Because whatever I say will be used to attack not just me but others too. Because that's how libel works. That's the whole point of it. 1/
782
4,602
599
20,007
Show this thread
Arron Banks lost his defamation claim against me. But today, his legal team are back in the Royal Courts of Justice seeking permission to appeal. This is our response.
323
1,530
60
8,069
There’s rather bigger legal news today but Banks has won permission to appeal on a single ground about continued publication after a change in circumstances. Aka whether a rich man is afforded the right in law to force publications to re-write history. theguardian.com/uk-news/2022…
58
246
3
962
Thank you as ever to my legal team & everyone who contributed to my crowdfunders. I couldn’t face court 13 again. Instead, I listened to UN special rapporteur on freedom of expression describe how the global attack on journalists & journalism is happening at an ecosystem level.
🚨Don't miss out on our virtual side event tomorrow at the @UNHRC on ‘New and Emerging Threats to the #SafetyOfJournalists’. 📅13:30-15:00 CEST With @Mbachelet, @IreneKhan, @CaroleCadwalla, @_SejalParmar, and @Danliza. ⤵️Register here: us06web.zoom.us/webinar/regi…
17
98
1
700
Carole Cadwalladr retweeted
For those of us combatting ‘lawfare’, today’s judgement in the Cadwalladr case is very important. Libel law in England’s been too heavily loaded against defendants. We need to protect public interest journalism and investigations properly, like the US does, with new legislation.
14
162
3
671
Show this thread
It did almost crush me. The only reason it didn't is because of my amazing lawyers & the generosity of 28,887 people. But here's what you don't know. The judgment is *extraordinary*. 117 pages of FACTS. About Russia, Brexit & the man who funded it. 1/ theguardian.com/uk-news/comm…
497
7,620
615
24,812
I was blown away when I read it. To judge the case on public interest, Mrs Justice Steyn first had to judge if Arron Banks had - as I alleged - lied. To do so, she examined his relationship with the Russian govt in forensic detail. We now have this all on public record. 2/
19
757
22
3,404
This is what I claimed was the key lie. The public statement Arron Banks made on the day the Electoral Commission opened its investigation into his Brexit donation. He said his "sole involvement with 'the Russians' was a boozy 6 hour lunch". I said this was a lie. 3/
10
497
9
2,634
After examining all available evidence, this is what Mrs Justice Steyn concluded: Arron Banks's statement to the public and the Electoral Commission *after* its investigation had commenced was "wholly inaccurate". But this is just the beginning of it. There is so much more. 4/
11
537
6
2,816
In her judgment, Mrs Justice Steyn says: * Arron Banks had "at least four meetings" with Russian officials * It would be "wrong to expect a journalist from identifying such an inaccurate statement..as a lie" * The 4 meetings were "probably not the full extent" of it 5/
10
473
9
2,604
Mrs Justice Steyn said "Ms Cadwalladr also had reasonable grounds for believing": "Mr Banks shared information with Russian officials" "Mr Banks had been offered sweetheart deals" He "used terminology suggestive of a r'ship in which he could visit the ambassador with ease" 6/
5
500
9
2,630
There's more. Mrs Justice Steyn found Banks's claim he received a document entitled "Russian gold sector consolidation play" from a UK associate not a Russian oligarch was "not credible". Also "not credible" was the explanation for why Wigmore said he had been in Moscow. 7/
7
411
2
2,479
On the morning of trial, Banks & I were still trying to reach a settlement. His demands included an undertaking to retract & never repeat the words from the TED talk: that he lied about his covert relationship with the Russian govt. And I just couldn't do it. 8/
36
511
11
3,694
I didn't fight this case to advance the legal defence of public interest reporting. Although it has done that. Nor to put these matters about Russia & Brexit on public record. Though it's done that too. I just couldn't retract what I knew to be fact. Black is not white. 9/
15
595
21
3,945
I walked into court facing a £500k shortfall if I lost & the destruction of my journalistic reputation. 10/
11
373
2
3,047
I'm a mess, my life is a mess, but black is not white. And that's why this victory belongs to the 28,887 people who backed me & stood alongside me. I stole these words about holding the line from the great @mariaressa. Because they're true. And in some small way, we did. 11/
57
758
21
5,297
Most people don't have this option. That includes news orgs & public bodies. It's why we DESPERATELY need a change in the law. This wasn't Banks's first libel case. His previous target was the Electoral Commission. It settled. These words were deleted from the public record. 12/
10
692
15
3,183
One day, I believe people in Britain will want to know what actually happened in 2016. That day is not yet here. But it will eventually come. And when it does, this 117-page forensic examination of the facts will form part of the historic record. judiciary.uk/wp-content/uplo… 13/
74
2,105
72
7,927
THE END (I hope.) Banks may still appeal. But he can only appeal on the legal argument. Not the facts. Facts are facts. And we have them now. I have so many people to thank individually but for now, thank you, thank you, thank you🙏🙏🙏 14/ judiciary.uk/wp-content/uplo…
381
913
37
9,670
Carole Cadwalladr retweeted
Yes. Journalism is indebted to ⁦@carolecadwalla⁩, and that means everyone is. What this piece doesn’t say is that journalism let her down, with little & poor coverage or apparent understanding of what this case meant theguardian.com/commentisfre…
98
1,577
50
6,176
Carole Cadwalladr retweeted
Banks V Cadwalladr: Shining a Torch in the Darkness. .@peterjukes looks at the precarious persistence of investigative journalism in Britain – especially when it comes to Russia, Trump and Brexit – and the importance of the public interest defence: bylinetimes.com/2022/06/13/b…
12
322
9
954