Birdwatch Note Rating
2023-05-20 11:17:25 UTC - HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: CCE007086B70E92FAA7C78E3FB1FBBA46DA571FC874A0E65233A1111C28B53D7
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