UK Supreme Court Denies Craig Wright’s Appeal in Libel Case

The UK Supreme Court has rejected the appeal of Craig Wright, the Australian computer scientist who claims to be the inventor of Bitcoin, in a libel case against podcaster Peter McCormack. Wright was awarded only £1 in damages by a lower court in July 2023, and he sought to challenge that decision. However, the Supreme Court refused to grant him permission to appeal, effectively ending the legal dispute.

Who is Craig Wright and why did he sue Peter McCormack?

Craig Wright is a controversial figure in the cryptocurrency community, as he has repeatedly asserted that he is Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin. He has also claimed that he owns the copyright to the Bitcoin whitepaper and the Bitcoin software, and that he is the sole legitimate representative of Bitcoin.

Peter McCormack is a popular podcaster and journalist who covers the cryptocurrency industry. He is also a vocal critic of Wright and his claims. In March 2019, McCormack tweeted that Wright was a fraud and not Satoshi Nakamoto, and challenged him to sue him. Wright took up the challenge and filed a libel lawsuit against McCormack in the UK, seeking £100,000 in damages and an injunction to prevent McCormack from repeating his statements.

How did the lower courts rule on the case?

The case went through several hearings and judgments in the High Court and the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The main issues were whether Wright had a reputation to protect in the UK, whether McCormack’s statements were defamatory, and whether McCormack had any valid defenses.

The High Court ruled in favor of Wright on the first two issues, finding that he had a substantial reputation in the UK and that McCormack’s statements were harmful to his reputation. However, the court also found that McCormack had a valid defense of honest opinion, meaning that he honestly believed that Wright was not Satoshi Nakamoto and that he had sufficient factual basis for his opinion. The court also noted that Wright’s claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto was highly disputed and controversial, and that he had to withstand criticism from dissenters.

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision, agreeing that McCormack had a valid defense of honest opinion. The court also reduced the damages awarded to Wright from £100,000 to £1, as it found that Wright had not suffered any serious harm to his reputation. The court said that Wright’s reputation was already tarnished by his own conduct and statements, and that McCormack’s tweets had no significant impact on his reputation.

Why did the Supreme Court refuse to hear Wright’s appeal?

Wright was dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal’s decision and sought to appeal to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the UK. However, the Supreme Court refused to grant him permission to appeal, meaning that he had no further legal recourse. The Supreme Court did not give any reasons for its refusal, but it is likely that it found that Wright’s appeal had no reasonable prospect of success or that it did not raise any important point of law or public interest.

What are the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision?

The Supreme Court’s decision marks the end of the legal battle between Wright and McCormack in the UK. It also means that the Court of Appeal’s decision stands as the final and binding judgment on the case. This means that Wright has failed to prove that he is Satoshi Nakamoto or that he has any exclusive rights to Bitcoin. It also means that McCormack and others are free to express their opinions on Wright’s claims, as long as they are honest and based on facts.

The decision also has wider implications for the cryptocurrency industry and the freedom of speech. It shows that the UK courts are willing to protect the right of individuals to criticize and challenge controversial claims, especially in the context of emerging and innovative technologies. It also shows that the UK courts are reluctant to interfere with the decentralized and open nature of Bitcoin, and that they recognize that the identity and authority of Satoshi Nakamoto are matters of public debate and not of legal determination.