Slaying the Dragon - Jack Monroe v Katie Hopkins

Katie Hopkins

Jack Monroe is a Guardian food writer, political commentator and mother, who frequently comments on welfare issues such as food banks. Ms Monroe was herself a benefits recipient for eighteen months. Today in court, Monroe successfully won her libel case against journalist and commentator, Apprentice and Big Brother TV show contestant - Katie Hopkins.

The full transcript of the case is attached. 

This is an important case - because although the damages are less than the £50,000 originally claimed by Ms. Monroe, the result is likely to encourage other actions for defamation to be taken? It is certainly is a warning to all those who want to 'sound-off' on Twitter and on the Internet in general. A warning not to make hurtful, unqualified, derogative statements about people in the public eye. Many people will be pleased to see that Katie Hopkins - who left The Sun newspaper after describing migrants fleeing impoverished, war-torn countries as 'Cockroaches' - has once again lost in Court. 

Katie Hopkins makes a very generous living, sending her children to public school, by making acerbic, inflammatory remarks about some of the poorest people in our country and in other nations. Fat-shaming fellow women and criticizing others for having tattoos, which in the end is a personal fashion choice.

As is often the case with such people, there is SOME truth in some of what Katie Hopkins says, but both presenter Piers Morgan, and businessman Alan Sugar, have in the past criticized Hopkins for not thinking before she speaks…

The irony is, Hopkins has been a major public figure supporting BREXIT and condemning the 'Re-moaner's' - as she calls them. People who want to see the UK remain in the EU, and most importantly the European single market.

As the judges pointed out, Hopkins could have settled this action before going to Court. It points to poor judgement on Hopkins part, not to take this course of action and to fail, once again, in the public eye.

BREXIT is a lot more of a serious issue than this action, however much the result means personally to Ms. Monroe and her supporters.

It could decide if we can fully fund pensions, the National Health Service and education system or support the unwaged? This case points to the risks of listening to people with such floored judgement, focused on simply being controversial in order to sell their newspaper columns and appear on TV chat shows. 

False prophets that could lead our country onto the ‘rocks and shoals’.

One hopes this result might encourage Katie Hopkins to ‘pipe down’ for a bit. Based on previous experience however, this seems unlikely.  

Image: Guardian food writer, Jack Monroe

This paragraph is the summing up of the Courts hearing. You can read a transcript of the full case by clicking on the download below:

Summary of Conclusions 82. My main conclusions are these. The First Tweet meant that Ms Monroe condoned and approved of scrawling on war memorials, vandalising monuments commemorating those who fought for her freedom. The Second Tweet meant that Ms Monroe condoned and approved of the fact that in the course of an anti-government protest there had been vandalisation by obscene graffiti of the women’s war memorial in Whitehall, a monument to those who fought for her freedom. These are meanings with a defamatory tendency, which were published to thousands. Their publication not only caused Ms Monroe real and substantial distress, but also harm to her reputation which was serious, albeit not “very serious” or “grave”. Ms Monroe is entitled to fair and reasonable compensation, which I assess at £24,000. There is no need for any injunction.