Katie Hopkins 'very likely' to appeal against Twitter libel ruling

Tom Powell
Katie Hopkins will have to pay legal costs running into six figures: Ian Gavan/Getty Images

Katie Hopkins has said it is "very likely" she will appeal after being ordered to pay £24,000 in damages for a defamatory tweet.

The outspoken columnist was ordered by a High Court judge on Friday to pay damages to writer Jack Monroe.

As well as the award to Monroe over defamatory "war memorial" tweets, former Apprentice star Hopkins will have to pay legal costs running into six figures.

But speaking to Radio 4's The Media Show, the writer said she was strongly considering appealing the decision.

She said: "It is very likely that we will appeal. And the grounds for that appeal will be the fact that no evidence of harm was produced in court.

"And in fact, further than that, there is absolutely no evidence that anybody believed the tweet that I wrote in the sense that it was in any way injurious to the claimant."

Food blogger Jack Monroe claimed damages from the newspaper columnist (PA)

Hopkins added that she thought deleting and retracting her first post was "reasonable behaviour" and that the defamation bar was not at a "reasonable level".

"I am satisfied with my behaviour. What I am not satisfied at is the defamation bar being as low as my labia," she said.

She was ordered by Mr Justice Warby at a hearing in London to pay £107,000 on account of costs within 28 days, with the full figure yet to be assessed.

Food blogger Monroe, 28, of Leigh-on-Sea, Essex, complained the tweets posted in May 2015 accused her of "vandalising a war memorial and desecrating the memory of those who fought for her freedom, or of approving or condoning such behaviour".

The judge said "Ms Hopkins does not suggest that Ms Monroe did behave in either of these ways".

Her answer to the claim was that her tweets did not bear the meanings complained of, were not defamatory and that it had not been shown that they caused serious harm to Monroe's reputation.

Hopkins had "mistakenly" used Monroe's Twitter handle instead of that of another columnist who had tweeted about the war memorial incident.

But the judge ruled that the "publications complained of" had "not only caused Ms Monroe real and substantial distress, but also harm to her reputation which was serious".