Saturday, 11 March 2017

Katie Hopkins *must* appeal against this clearly wrong decision by Justice Warby

A question is not a statement. An offensive question can be answered in the negative, neutralising any libelous content of the question.

A "When did you stop beating your wife?" question is of course libelous if you are denying that you ever beat your wife.

I am also annoyed that the Sally Bercow case was decided wrongly.

Someone asking a question with an "innocent face" does not amount to libel.

This is because any question can be answered in the affirmative or the negative to neutralise any libelous content within it, unless the question assumes the existence of some contested fact, eg "When did you stop beating your wife?" when it is being disputed by the person asked that he ever beat his wife.  

No jury of right-thinking tweeting men and women would ever have decided that Katie Hopkins had caused Mx Jack Monroe "serious harm" or awarded damages in these terms at paragraph 80.

Taking  account  of  all  these  matters,  my  award  is  £24,000.  That  is  divided  into £16,000  for  the  First  Tweet  and  £8,000  for  the  Second  Tweet.

1 comment:

AB said...

Defamation is that which lowers your reputation in the eyes of right thinking men and women. Grounds for appeal: My Lord, is anyone likely to think less of this woman on account of being slagged off by a deranged hag like, er, me?