• Carole Cadwalladr argues that her Twitter constituted an “echo chamber.”
• It is a libel action against prominent Brexit supporter Arron Banks.
• She alleged that he told “falsehoods” about “his secret ties with the Russian government.”

Carole Cadwalladr successfully argues that her Twitter constituted an “echo chamber” in a libel action against prominent Brexit supporter Arron Banks.

Mr. Banks filed a libel suit against the investigative reporter after she alleged that he told “falsehoods” about “his secret ties with the Russian government.”

Mr. Banks, who always strenuously disputes the allegations, sued for libel because the statements were “false and defamatory,” according to Ms. Cadwalladr, who afterwards posted a tweet with a link to the presentation.

Mrs. Justice Steyn of the High Court dismissed Mr. Banks’ suit on Monday, ruling that Ms. Cadwalladr had a “reasonable belief” that her remarks were in the public interest.

Ms. Cadwalladr was sharing the link to her talk with her Twitter followers, who “are likely to be folks within her own echo chamber” and “it’s presumably right that they wouldn’t have thought very much of [the claimant] by that time,” according to the verdict.

“Those within the jurisdiction to whom the tweet was disseminated,” Mrs. Justice Steyn decided, “are likely to consist of people whose opinion of the claimant was of no significance to him.”

Read more: Johnny Depp’s ‘Cry-Baby’ bike was auctioned off for $250,000 after a trial

During the initial libel trials, Ms. Cadwalladr’s lawyer, William McCormick QC, advanced this point.

The winning argument, according to media law expert David Banks, is “a little bit of a cat among the pigeons.”

“Basically echo chambers, which is how the judgment refers to Carole’s followers, do less harm than someone whose followers have a more diverse range of views,” he tweeted.

‘The judge felt sorry for Carole’

“The judge felt sorry for Carole is how I would sum it up,” Mr. Banks tweeted, implying that he will likely appeal the decision. It’s defamatory, but it doesn’t cause any severe harm. I suppose falsely accusing someone of accepting Russian funds in exchange for Brexit isn’t going to cut it. It’s very possible that I’ll file an appeal.”

Ms. Cadwalladr, a freelance journalist who contributes to The Guardian and The Observer, looks into the funding of referendum campaigns as well as alleged data exploitation.

“Based on her investigation, Ms. Cadwalladr had reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Banks had been offered ‘sweetheart’ deals by the Russian government in the run-up to the EU referendum, although she had seen no evidence he had entered into any such deals; and Mr. Banks’ financial affairs, and the source of his ability to make the largest political donations in UK history, were opaque,” Mrs. Justice Steyn wrote in her ruling.

“Most importantly, when Ms. Cadwalladr gave the Ted Talk, the Electoral Commission had announced, after a one-year investigation, that it had reasonable grounds to suspect that Mr. Banks was not the true source of the £8 million loans/donations, but rather a non-qualifying company, Rock Holdings, based in an offshore, non-transparent jurisdiction.”

“In addition, the matter had been forwarded to the NCA and that organization was investigating when she gave the Ted Talk.”

The court ruled that the tweet Mr. Banks complained about did not cause him “severe injury,” but that if it did, she would conclude that Ms. Cadwalladr’s opinion that the post was in the public interest was likewise reasonable.