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.

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…

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…

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/

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/

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/

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/

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/

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/

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/

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/

I walked into court facing a £500k shortfall if I lost & the destruction of my journalistic reputation. 10/

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/

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/

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/