PETER CRUDDAS

It should be made clear, for the sake of accuracy and balanced reporting and the quest to "hold power to account",  that the Court of Appeal confirmed that the defendants were liable for libel and malicious falsehood in respect of meanings 2 and 3, that they knew the meanings 2 and 3 were untrue, that the journalists were malicious in relation to meanings 2 and 3, that there were many shortcomings in the Sunday Times articles and that in some respects the articles were unfair to Mr Cruddas. The Court of Appeal made an award of £50,000 for damages in favour of the claimant  and maintained the injunction relating to meanings 2 and 3.  Please can the Sunday Times disclose what their costs have been and whether they have been or will be ordered to pay all, or a proportion of the claimant's costs? Will the Sunday Times also justify why they have reported the judgement in a biased and misleading manner, which appears more about defending vested interests rather than upholding the finest standards in investigative journalism.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/public/article1532141.ece