Food blogger wins Twitter libel case against Katie Hopkins
Jack Monroe awarded £24,000 after columnist linked her to vandalism of war memorial
Writer Jack Monroe said Katie Hopkins’s tweets caused serious damage to her reputation. Photographs: PA/Getty
A writer has won £24,000 damages in a High Court action against controversial newspaper columnist Katie Hopkins over tweets she said caused “serious harm” to her reputation.
Jack Monroe, a food blogger who also campaigns over poverty issues, sued Ms Hopkins over two “war memorial” tweets, asking a judge in London to find she was “defamed” by the former Apprentice contestant.
Following a recent hearing, Mr Justice Mark Warby ruled in Ms Monroe’s favour on Friday.
Ms Monroe 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.”
The case arose following the daubing of a memorial to the women of the second World War in Whitehall with the words “F... Tory scum” during an anti-austerity demonstration in 2015.
It"s taken 21 months— ❄Jack Monrowflake (@MxJackMonroe) March 10, 2017
but today the High Court ruled
that Hopkins statements to/about me were defamatory.
I sued her for libel.
and I won.
Ms Monroe took legal action over what her lawyer told the judge was a “widely published allegation” that she had “either vandalised a war memorial or approved of such an act”, an allegation that would “inevitably cause serious damage to reputation”.
Jonathan Price, for Ms Hopkins, told the judge her case was “this relatively trivial dispute arose and was resolved on Twitter in a period of several hours”.
He argued “no lasting harm, and certainly no serious harm”, to Ms Monroe’s reputation resulted from it.
Ms Hopkins had “mistakenly” used Ms Monroe’s Twitter handle instead of that of another columnist who had tweeted about the war memorial incident.
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.”