Bercow's McAlpine Tweet Libellous, Rules Court

A tweet by Sally Bercow about Lord McAlpine, which he claims named him as a paedophile, was libellous, the High Court has ruled.

The wife of Commons Speaker John Bercow is being sued by the Tory peer for damages after she named him on Twitter last year.

The posting appeared two days after a Newsnight report on November 2 wrongly implicated the former Conservative Party treasurer in allegations of sex abuse at Bryn Estyn children's home in the 1970s and 1980s.

Mrs Bercow has always denied that the tweet - "Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *Innocent face*" - was defamatory, and has apologised publicly and privately to the former Conservative Party treasurer for the distress caused to him.

But lawyers for Lord McAlpine, who received six-figure payouts from the BBC and ITV over the matter, claim the post pointed "the finger of blame" at him.

The pair have been locked in a court battle for months, and Wednesday's hearing was to determine the meaning of the tweet.

Responding to the judgement, Mrs Bercow said she was "surprised and disappointed".

"However, I will accept the ruling as the end of the matter. I remain sorry for the distress I have caused Lord McAlpine and I repeat my apologies," she said.

"I have accepted an earlier offer his lawyers made to settle this matter."

She further added that she very much regretted the tweet which she said was not tweeted "with malice", but "was being conversational and mischievous, as was so often my style on Twitter".

Her statement said: "Lord McAlpine issued proceedings and the last few months have been a nightmare. I am sure he has found it as stressful as I have. Litigation is not a pleasant experience for anyone."

It added: "Today's ruling should be seen as a warning to all social media users. Things can be held to be seriously defamatory, even when you do not intend them to be defamatory and do not make any express accusation. On this, I have learned my own lesson the hard way.

"I would like to thank my legal team for their wise counsel and my family and friends for their unequivocal support throughout the last few months."

Mr Justice Tugendhat said that in its natural and ordinary meaning, the tweet meant that Lord McAlpine was a paedophile who was guilty of sexually abusing boys living in care.

"In my judgement, the reasonable reader would understand the words 'innocent face' as being insincere and ironical," he said.

He added that, if he was wrong about that, he would find that it bore an innuendo meaning to the same effect.

Andrew Reid, of RMPI Solicitors, representing Lord McAlpine, said: "The apologies previously received from Mrs Bercow did not concede that her tweet was defamatory. Clearly she must now accept this fact.

"The failure of Mrs Bercow to admit that her tweet was defamatory caused considerable unnecessary pain and suffering to Lord McAlpine and his family over the past six months.

"With knowledge of the judgement, I am pleased to be able to say that Mrs Bercow has finally seen sense and has accepted an offer of settlement, which Lord McAlpine made back in January."

He added: "Mr Justice Tugendhat's judgement is one of great public interest and provides both a warning to, and guidance for, people who use social media. It highlights how established legal principles apply to social media, and how the courts take account of the particular way in which social media operates when reaching decisions on whether publications are defamatory."