A writer has won £24,000 in damages in a libel suit against columnist Katie Hopkins over tweets she said caused "serious harm" to her reputation.
Food blogger Jack Monroe sued Hopkins over tweets which implied she defaced or condoned the damage to a war memorial in central London.
The case arose after the memorial to the women of the Second World War in Whitehall was vandalised with the words "F*** Tory scum" during an anti-austerity protest.
Monroe's lawyer told the High Court that Hopkins' tweets to Monroe - apparently in a case of mistaken identity amounted to an allegation that would "inevitably cause serious damage to reputation".
The judge heard it was a "widely published allegation" that Monroe had "either vandalised a war memorial or approved of such an act".
Jonathan Price, for Hopkins, argued: "This relatively trivial dispute arose and was resolved on Twitter in a period of several hours".
He asserted "no lasting harm, and certainly no serious harm", to Monroe's reputation resulted from it.
But Mr Justice Warby ruled "whilst the claimant may not have proved that her reputation suffered gravely, I am satisfied that she has established that the publications complained of caused serious harm to her reputation".
He said their publication "not only caused Ms Monroe real and substantial distress, but also harm to her reputation which was serious".
The judge concluded: "Ms Monroe is entitled to fair and reasonable compensation, which I assess at £24,000."
Monroe, who also campaigns over poverty issues, tweeted: "It"s taken 21 months but today the High Court ruled that Hopkins statements to/about me were defamatory. I sued her for libel. and I won."
It is not the first libel suit Hopkins has been involved in recently.
In December, Hopkins apologised to a British Muslim family over a Mail Online column in which she accused them of being extremists after they were refused entry to the US for a trip to Disneyland.
The newspaper was ordered to pay the family £150,000 in libel damages.
No comments:
Post a Comment