Senior judges to hear Wings Over Scotland appeal

Mr Campbell had been seeking £25,000 in damages from Ms Dugdale

Senior judges are to hear an appeal by a prominent pro-independence blogger who lost his legal case against former Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale.

Stuart Campbell of the Wings Over Scotland blog accused Ms Dugdale of defamation after she claimed he had sent "homophobic tweets".

A sheriff ruled in Ms Dugdale's favour after a hearing earlier this year.

Mr Campbell has now been given permission to appeal to the Inner House of the Court of Session.

The case was referred to the Court of Session after the Sheriff Appeal Court in Edinburgh agreed to a request by Mr Campbell's QC, Craig Sandison.

Mr Sandison argued that the original ruling by Sheriff Nigel Ross was partly based on English case law - and said he wanted the Court of Session to give an "authoritative definition of defamation" in Scotland.

• Kezia Dugdale wins blogger defamation case

• Blogger ordered to pay Dugdale's legal expenses

Ms Dugdale's lawyer, Roddy Dunlop QC, said the present legal authority which is used by Scottish judges in defamation cases dates from 1921, and he agreed there was a "paucity of authorities in this matter".

The case centres on a tweet posted by Mr Campbell during the Conservative Party conference in 2017, which said that Conservative MSP Oliver Mundell "is the sort of public speaker that makes you wish his dad had embraced his homosexuality sooner."

Ms Dugdale subsequently referenced Mr Campbell's "homophobic tweets" in her Daily Record newspaper column, and accused him of spouting "hatred and homophobia towards others" from his Twitter account.

Mr Campbell strongly denied his tweet was a homophobic reference to former Scottish Secretary David Mundell being gay, and insisted that his tweet was merely "satirical criticism" of Oliver Mundell's public speaking skills.

'Public interest'

In his written judgement in April, Sheriff Ross said Ms Dugdale was incorrect to imply that Mr Campbell was homophobic - but concluded that her article was protected under the principle of fair comment.

The sheriff said the defamation laws recognised that there was "significant public interest in allowing people to freely express opinions without fear of legal penalty".

He went on to describe Mr Campbell as someone who had "chosen insult and condemnation as his style", and said the blogger could not "hold others to a higher standard of respect than he is willing himself to adopt".

The court later awarded full expenses to Ms Dugdale, plus a 50% "uplift" - which Mr Campbell said would leave him having to pay a total bill of about £100,000.

His latest annual fundraiser saw Mr Campbell - who is Scotland's best known political blogger - raise £171,849 from his readers in June.

He said at the time that some of this money would be used to pay legal costs or to appeal against the judgement. A poll of his readers showed overwhelming support for an appeal.