Yesterday’s Cadwalladr ruling was confusing at best. While Mrs Justice Steyn ruled the TED Talk Carole Cadwalladr gave was defamatory, she said Banks had failed to prove that its publication caused “serious harm to reputation”. Part of this was based on a belief that Carole’s followers are mainly an #FBPE echo chamber, therefore unlikely to have had their minds changed by the defamatory Russia claim…

It’s since been pointed out to Guido that the husband of Mrs Justice Steyn, Alex Glassbrook, is none other than a Brexit-hating former LibDem candidate who is not unfamiliar with that Twitter echo chamber. Glassbrook stood for the LibDems as their Tooting by-election candidate in 2016, and at the 2017 General Election, where his leaflets said he “was dismayed when our country voted to leave the European Union.”

Justice Steyn, first name Karen, was loyaly supportive of her husband’s electoral efforts. Her Twitter account shows her delighting in the LibDems’ potential at the 2017 election, and retweeting a photo of her husband at a husting where he “brilliantly [represented] #LibDems”

Guido has no intention of impugning the integrity of the judge in this case – just observing that it would have been very fraught over last night’s dinner table had she ruled in favour of the “Hard Brexit” backer her husband pledged to fight…

Mrs Justice Steyn has ruled that a TED Talk given by Carole Cadwalladr was defamatory, though Banks failed to prove that “the publication of the TED Talk from 29 April 2020 caused and/or is likely to cause serious harm to his reputation.” He was as a consequence awarded no damages.

The judgement ruled that “there was a significant change of circumstances once … the National Crime Agency” investigation cleared Banks and her public interest defence ceased to apply after that finding. Banks was sanguine, publicly tweeting “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 and we will likely appeal.” For Banks it was never really about money and winning damages – she would have been bankrupted, if she had to pay anyway. It was about clearing his name in court once and for all.

The Judge also dismissed Cadwalladr’s bluster from when she was trying to frame the case as a “freedom of the press” issue, that this was a SLAPP suit:

9. 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.

That was always nonsense.

Crucially Justice Steyn ruled

“it may reasonably be inferred that the vast majority of the defendant’s followers on Twitter “are likely to be persons within her own echo chamber” and “it’s probably right that they wouldn’t have thought very much of [the claimant] by that time”. In my judgment, those within the jurisdiction to whom the Tweet was published are likely to consist of people whose opinion of the claimant was of no consequence to him.

The claimant’s case on this issue is essentially dependent on drawing an inference of serious harm from the combination of the gravity of the imputation and the extent of publication. While I have been persuaded, on balance, to draw such an inference in relation to the TED Talk, in my judgment, the claimant has not established that the Tweet caused (or is likely to cause) serious harm to Mr Banks’s reputation.”

In other words Carole Cadwalladr’s #FBPE echo chamber on Twitter constantly repeating deranged allegations does not constitute “serious harm”. “Defamatory tweets don’t matter” is an extraordinary ruling in an age where social media dominates public discourse…

Full judgement Banks v Cadwalladr.
UPDATE: Banks has released a statement on the result:

Read More

Jolyon has published the Good Law Project’s (GLP) long-awaited annual report for 2021-22. The good news for Jolyon is he’s raked in a record number of donations, with “at least 61,445 people” throwing their money down the drain in the past year. The bad news is if the GLP lose all their impending cases at their usual rate, they’ll have to break into their emergency war chest:

“In summary, we have estimated potential net liabilities of £3.2 million across our litigation portfolio against our Legal Defence Fund of £2.0 million. However, we do not expect to fight and lose all these cases in our portfolio and, as they are ongoing, we expect to be able to fundraise further as the litigation progresses.”

They ended the year with £2.1 million in general reserves, which they claim is used “to provide working capital and allow us to seize opportunities and weather operational setbacks“. The £2 million they’ve earmarked for legal fights won’t cover the potential total cost of their losses, so Jolyon will have to raid his war chest if things continue to go south. Jolyon’s track record of losing 81% of his cases may not assure donors that the GLP is in good shape, and there’s nothing to worry about. Still, as he points out, he’s relying on more patrons parting with their money…

Yesterday afternoon the judgement in Ms A’s employment tribunal case against Mike Hill, the former Labour MP for Hartlepool, was finally handed down. Ms A has been awarded compensation of £435,000 for Hill’s sexual harassment of her and the termination of her employment. Unfortunately for Hill, his defence lawyers have used almost all of the taxpayer-funded IPSA insurance policy cover, so the claim will fall on him personally. It is unlikely that he has the funds or assets to pay the award. Hill will therefore be facing potential personal bankruptcy. Ms A’s lawyers are also looking to claim against the Labour Party to whom she complained about the sexual harassment she was suffering, and who she believes did nothing to help or protect her. Co-conspirators may recall that the then Shadow Minister Kate Hollern had to quit Starmer’s front bench following testimony made to the employment tribunal that she tried to intimidate a witness as part of a cover-up.

Tory MP Andrew Bridgen accused Hollern of warning him not to get involved in the harassment case after the parliamentary staffer informed him of allegations of sexual impropriety. In her witness statement Ms A said:

“Andrew Bridgen called me to tell me that Kate Hollern had approached him in parliament and pulled him to one side. Mr Bridgen told me Ms Hollern tried to warn him off from helping me by using scare tactics. Ms Hollern said that many in the Labour Party were of the opinion that Mr Bridgen and I were having an affair and she advised him to keep away from me as it would be a shame if it got out in the papers as he had a lovely wife and new baby – Mr Bridgen told her she was talking nonsense and to go away.”

Hollern, still a serving MP, had to resign after Bridgen gave evidence for Ms A that Hollern tried to intimidate him to dissuade him from supporting Ms A. Speaking to Guido this morning Bridgen says:

“I am delighted that the employment tribunal has awarded Ms A considerable compensation for what must have been intolerable treatment by her employer. … It cannot be just that her award is not discharged in full especially given she was the victim of sexual harassment as a result of her employment in Parliament. If the award is not discharged in full it would also send a terrible message to any other member of an MPs staff who find themselves in a similar situation.”

The history of serial cover-up attempts by the Labour Party in this case is particularly shameful…

Download the full judgement: [PDF]

After wasting hundreds of hours in court and thousands of pounds in donations, Jolyon has finally admitted defeat and promised that the Good Law Project (GLP) will stop submitting pointless judicial review applications against the government every five minutes. Apparently this is a result of “eye-watering costs” and government “hostility” – and the fact that judges have repeatedly told him to stop wasting time with “debatable” challenges. Although he still insists the only reason judges are telling him this is because Ministers are ‘threatening’ them…

In a lengthy, self-congratulatory statement, Jolyon revealed that the GLP will now “adapt” to survive:

“… the truth is, our work is getting more and more challenging. We have seen eye-watering costs from the Government which are, we believe, quite clearly designed to scare us off. There is a steady drumbeat of attacks on us from Ministers and threats targeted at judges to curb judicial review. […] Faced with this hostility, it would be easy to pack up and give in. But what we are building together – a fairer, more equal society – is too important. So, we will adapt.”

“…When it makes sense, we will continue cases we have started and bring new cases we still think we can win. In some instances, the best decision will be to withdraw. We will back more cases brought by others. And when Ministers tell you lies, we will continue to publish the truth. […] The law will remain central to everything we do, as will our commitment to hold those in power to account. But our work will feel a little different.”

Conveniently, the reminder to donate is still listed at the bottom of the statement. Wouldn’t want to change too much…

The reality is, as Guido has chronicled at length, Jolyon’s not-that-Good Law Project has tilted at windmills, litigated political points, wasted a lot of people’s time and money and had more defeats than victories. If he restricted himself to litigating more cases like the action he is taking on behalf of children in care, he would command widespread support. Trying to litigate political and partisan issues best decided democratically, is going to deservedly fail…