Joey Barton to pay an extra £35,000 to Jeremy Vine
Joey Barton will pay a further £35,000 in damages to settle a libel claim with Jeremy Vine, the broadcaster's solicitors have confirmed.
The Radio 2 presenter sued Mr Barton earlier this year, after the former footballer wrote a series of posts suggesting Mr Vine had a sexual interest in children.
In May, the High Court ruled that Mr Barton's posts were defamatory. On Tuesday, the sportsman apologised and agreed to pay £75,000 in damages and legal costs.
But Mr Vine later said the payment was "not the final outcome" of the case.
In a statement, his lawyers said Mr Barton would pay a further £35,000 for posts published after Mr Vine took legal action.
"Mr Barton responded to being served with Mr Vine's claim by making additional damaging and untrue publications about Mr Vine and his legal complaints," wrote Judith Thompson of Samuels Solicitors.
These statements "gave rise to additional claims for defamation, harassment and invasion of privacy" which were not covered by the first settlement.
"Mr Vine is pleased that his claims have been resolved and that he has been vindicated in respect of Mr Barton's appalling allegations and conduct," she added.
As part of the settlement, Mr Barton "is also required to participate in a statement in Open Court, in which he will make a comprehensive formal apology" for his actions and "give undertakings" not to repeat them.
The BBC has approached Mr Barton's lawyers for comment, but is yet to receive a response.
Warning: the next section of this article contains strong language.
Lawyers acting for Mr Vine said the abuse began last year after Mr Barton called the female football pundits Eni Aluko and Lucy Ward “the Fred and Rose West of football commentary”, referring to the British serial killers.
This led to a series of posts criticising women involved in football and football punditry, after which Mr Vine asked: "Are we dealing with a brain injury here?"
In response, Mr Barton - who was manager of Bristol Rovers until October last year - began what lawyers characterised as a "calculated and sustained attack" on the broadcaster.
In a series of tweets, he called Mr Vine a “weasel” and a “government shill” and said: “If you see this fella by a primary school call 999.”
He went on to call him a "big bike nonce" and a "pedo defender".
Mr Barton's barrister said the posts contained "vulgar abuse" written by "someone who is posting in the heat of the moment" but denied libel.
In May, however, a high court judge ruled that the comments were defamatory.
In her judgment, Mrs Justice Steyn wrote: "While I do not consider that the hypothetical reader, who would read the post quickly and move on, would infer a causative link, i.e. that the claimant defends paedophiles because he shares the same propensity, the juxtaposition of the words 'nonce' and 'pedo' is striking and would reinforce the impression that the former was used in the sense of 'paedophile'."
On Tuesday, Mr Barton posted an apology from the same X (formerly Twitter) account he had previously used to insult Mr Vine.
"Between 8 and 12 January 2024 I published 11 posts which accused Jeremy Vine of having a sexual interest in children, and created a hashtag which made the same allegations, which were viewed millions of times," he told his 2.8 million followers.
"I recognise that this is a very serious allegation. It is untrue. I do not believe that Mr Vine has a sexual interest in children, and I wish to set the record straight.
"I also published posts during the same period in which I referred to Mr Vine having advocated forced vaccination during the Covid 19 pandemic, based upon a video clip of his TV programme.
"I accept that he did not advocate this policy and that the video clip has been edited to give a misleading impression of what he was in fact saying.
"I then taunted and abused Mr Vine for bringing a legal complaint against me. I have agreed not to make the same allegations again about Mr Vine and I apologise to him for the distress he has suffered.
"To resolve his claims against me in defamation and harassment, I have agreed to pay Mr Vine £75,000 in damages and his legal costs."
In a statement, Mr Vine's lawyers said he was "pleased that his claims have been resolved and that he has been vindicated in respect of Mr Barton’s appalling allegations and conduct".
