Jewish TV presenter Rachel Riley has been awarded £50,000 in damages after winning a defamation case against political blogger Michael Sivier who accused her of abusing a 16-year-old girl on social media.

The Countdown star sued Mr Sivier over a 2019 article about a Twitter debate on antisemitism in the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, which Ms Riley said had triggered online abuse.

Mr Sivier claimed that his article was in the public interest, however in her ruling on Wednesday morning, Mrs Justice Steyn said that although Mr Sivier believed and continued to believe that his article was in the public interest, that belief was "wholly unreasonable" that had no basis in the evidence.

In a statement following her victory, Ms Riley accused Mr Sivier of "misleading some extremely vulnerable people into giving him their money" to fund his case, despite her offer to "pay £1k to a children’s charity and £4k of court fees to settle the matter, which he decided not to disclose during his extensive blogging and grifting".

She added: "In the unlikely event that Sivier pays the £50k the court has awarded, any money I may receive will go to charity as has always been the plan. My motivation has always been to combat the lies which has been achieved through due legal process today."

The case was brought following an article published on Mr Sivier's website Vox Political on January 26 2019 with the headline “Serial abuser Rachel Riley to receive ‘extra protection’ – on grounds that she is receiving abuse”.

The article centred around Twitter exchanges in December 2018 and January 2019 between Ms Riley and a girl who identified herself as a 16-year-old named Rose. Mr Sivier claimed in his article that Ms Riley was "serial abuser" and these exchanges amounted to abuse.

Giving evidence at the trial earlier this year, Ms Riley spoke about the volume of abuse that she had received as a result of the article, saying: "I changed my Twitter settings after that week because it was so horrendous."

The judge found that Ms Riley was a "credible and reliable witness", while Mr Sivier "came across as intransigent" and therefore "found his evidence to be unreliable."

Mr Sivier's legal team had attempted to assert that Ms Riley had not suffered serious harm from the article, saying that she was already known for being "highly offensive and controversial".

However, Mrs Justice Steyn dismissed those claims about Ms Riley's behaviour following an analysis of the Twitter exchanges given in evidence.

The judge described Ms Riley's tweets in reply to Rose as "gentle, civil and measured", which she added was "in sharp contrast to the insulting messages some other Twitter users had sent Rose, and manifestly provided no encouragement to anyone to abuse, bully, or harass her."

Of the first Twitter thread, the judge wrote: "Ms Riley clearly sought to discourage anyone from attacking Rose by accepting unequivocally, at the outset of the thread, Rose's statement that she would never be racist to anyone and condemns antisemitism, and by stating at the end of the thread that she knew Rose's 'heart is in the right place', expressing the view that 'online pile-ons can be horrible' and stating that anyone attacking Rose could 'f the F off'."

"Mr Sivier's evidence that in the second thread Ms Riley made a further attempt to gaslight Rose, and that by contacting her on public Twitter, rather than using the direct message system, Ms Riley sought to intimidate, abuse and harass Rose again bears no rational relation to the messages that she sent."

"In his statement, Mr Sivier asked, 'What possible reason could she have had for publishing this thread, other than to create animosity against the girl who had challenged her?' The answer was patently obvious: her reason for publishing the 9 January thread was to defend herself against an unfounded allegation of bullying a 16-year-old girl online."

On damages, the judge said: "There has been no retraction, amendment or apology to mitigate the damage to the claimant’s reputation or to provide any element of vindication. The award of damages, together with this judgment, will have to provide that.”

The judge determined that there is an "irresistible case" for an injunction requiring the article to be taken down, and preventing Mr Sivier from publishing those claims or similar ones.

Ms Riley's team had asked for damages of £156,000, including aggravated damages, and the defence said that they should amount to "no more than nominal damages and 'no sum close to the £10,000" awarded in Riley v Murray.

However, the judge determined that £50,000 was a reasonable award, which includes aggravated damages.

Mr Sivier had appealed online for financial assistance to fight the case, raising £233,830 of a target of £250,000. On the CrowdJustice site, he claimed that he and his team believed that they had a “very strong case” and that the case "will be a victory of wealth over justice."

Ms Riley said in a statement following the ruling: "I’m very pleased to have complete vindication in my libel case against Mike Sivier. He made very serious accusations which have been shown to be categorically untrue and wholly unreasonable.

"Over the course of the legal process Sivier has crowd funded over £233k by repeating what the court had already deemed to be perverse twisting of reality and outright lies, misleading some extremely vulnerable people into giving him their money.

"This is despite my offer for him to pay £1k to a children’s charity and £4k of court fees to settle the matter, which he decided not to disclose during his extensive blogging and grifting.

"In the unlikely event that Sivier pays the £50k the court has awarded, any money I may receive will go to charity as has always been the plan. My motivation has always been to combat the lies which has been achieved through due legal process today."

Libel lawyer Mark Lewis, who represented Ms Riley, told the JC: "I am grateful that the Judge has completely vindictated Rachel from these completely false claims, defended at the expense of those who were not told that there was a very cheap way out. 

"So many untruthful things are said by those who are protected by their impecuniousity and grifting. I wish I could do more but the cost and burden needs to be shared by others so that more can be done."