The Independent Cambridge Student Newspaper
28th January 2011 Issue No. 733
ESTD 1947
OPINION How one man’s beliefs are colouring advice on drug misuse p6
University donations enable ‘libel tourism’ Controversial university donor Dmitry Firtash cites Cambridge connections in libel case brought against a Ukrainian newspaper in the British courts ANDREW GRIFFIN, JESSIE WALDMAN & TRISTAN DUNN deputy news editors & political correspondent
CULTURE Brit nominated Arcade Fire talk about staying grounded p9
SPORT Jesus’ captain on ending the rule of the Red Boys p15 04 > 9 771758 444002
CAMBRIDGETRUSTS.ORG
A billionaire donor to the University of Cambridge has filed a libel lawsuit against a Ukrainian paper, the Kyiv Post, citing his donations to the University as one of the reasons he has chosen to pursue the case through the British Courts. Dmitry Firtash, a gas-trading oligarch with strong connections to the President of Ukraine, has donated on a number of occasions to the University to help fund Cambridge Ukrainian Studies, based within the University’s Department for Slavonic Studies. On its website the graduate course is described as “Western Europe’s premier programme in the study of the culture and language of Ukraine.” His most recent donation was in October 2010, when he donated £4.3m to fund the creation of two permanent academic posts central to the Ukrainian Studies programme. These donations have now been brought up during a lawsuit which is taking place in London.
On 2nd July 2010, the Kyiv Post, Ukraine’s leading English-language publication, published an article online about Ukraine’s natural gas sector. Following the publication of this article Mr Firtash issued libel proceedings in London against the Kyiv Post. Talking to Varsity, the Kyiv Post described the decision to file the lawsuit in London “as without merit and frivolous.” In court documents seen by Varsity, Mr Firtash is detailed as “a prominent businessman who lives in Ukraine but also enjoys a reputation in the UK.” In the documents, Mr Firtash’s solicitor cites his donations to the University of Cambridge, as well as the fact that he attended a dinner with the Queen in 2005, as explicit reasons for him having a reputation to protect in the UK. When questioned upon the issue of Mr. Firtash’s donations to Cambridge being used in such a way, a spokesman for the University simply confirmed the receipt of the donations. The Kyiv Post has argued that fewer than 30 readers within the UK viewed the article in question and hence there was little reputation damage.
Dmitry Firtash, Ukrainian billionaire, is no stranger to scandal Another reason Firtash’s solicitor cites for holding the case here is that, “given the terms of the article suggesting friends in high places in the Ukraine” his reputation could only be fully vindicated in a court outside the country. However the Kyiv Post claims the true reason that Firtash wants the lawsuit to take place in London is that “draconian libel laws” in the UK “hinder legitimate free speech and threaten the work of independent journalists.” They add, “In a phenomenon known as ‘libel tourism,’ rich and powerful
plaintiffs file lawsuits in London – ‘the libel capital of the world’ – to exploit laws stacked in their favour.” The paper then claims that the University’s “acceptance of funding from Firtash is enabling him to try and curb media freedom in the Ukraine.” The Kyiv Post has now blocked all web-traffic from the UK in protest against the libel laws that exist here. Firtash is no newcomer to scandal. In the past, he has been accused of having connections to one of the world’s most wanted criminals. Continued page 4
Commentary: Libel law puts a high price on justice and devalues freedom of speech RHYS TREHARNE news editor
L
ibel law in the UK is a joke – an expensive, unjust, and unfunny joke. Ostensibly designed to balance the freedom of speech with the need to protect reputations from unjustified attack, the law has increasingly become a threat to basic liberties. For the average author or journalist, who’s job-in-trade it is to write and
expose, fighting a libel case can be so stratospherically expensive that even if they are successful most will end up paying court expenses of at least £100,000. More worryingly, and contrary to the judicial norm, defendants accused of libel are guilty until proven innocent; whilst claimants are under no compulsion to prove that their reputation or emotional state has been damaged at
all. But this law is not merely an affront to our freedom of speech: it is a direct threat to our concept of equality before the law. For example, if I were to make the case that the health benefits of homeopathic medicine were about as transparent as water (which, incidentally, is exactly what homeopathic medicine is), and I were then taken to court for defamation by the Society
of Homeopaths, which of us would be more likely to win? The Society, with its immense corporate wealth, or me? That British libel law favours the wealthy at the expenses of those who possess little but their liberty to free expression is beyond doubt. Reform is overdue; the time has come to send a crease of alarm through the pinched and puny faces of the powerful and pompous.