Birdwatch Note Rating
2023-05-20 12:45:10 UTC - HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: AEF566A9EFEED0E9F9A08B569DC5E627F0470A743AF7BB5BBE90713A2696C828
Participant Details
Original Note:
The court found: “the Defendant was responsible for the unlawful publication […] which caused serious harm to the Claimant’s reputation, which the Defendant accepts was not true, and which (as she also accepted on appeal) was no longer defensible in the public interest.” https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/cadwalladr-to-pay-million-pound-damages/ https://inforrm.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Banks-v-Cadwalladr-CA-order.pdf
All Note Details