Katie Hopkins seems to be styling herself as a legal commentator

Avatar photo

By Katie King on

Reality TV star loves writing about the law in her mad Mail Online columns


Katie Hopkins seems to be styling herself as a legal affairs commentator.

The reality star — who holds an economics degree from Exeter University but no legal qualifications — has this week published the latest instalment in a bizarre series of law-themed contributions.

This time turning her attention to the ins and outs of family law, Hopkins’ new Mail Online column squares in on businessman and ITV jungle celeb Duncan Bannatyne, who is reportedly in trouble for hiding £10m from his partner during their divorce proceedings.

Feeling less than sympathetic towards her fellow divorcee, Hopkins takes a bold swipe at the former Dragon’s ex-wife, and divorced women more generally, thundering:

Women demand equality. Yet in court some of them still want to be treated like a princess.

The position of undeclared assets in divorce proceedings is something that the Supreme Court has recently looked into. In the well-publicised cases of Sharland and Gohil, the court found that the ex-wives of wealthy men were entitled to a share of the money hidden by their partners during proceedings.

This seems to have annoyed Hopkins. In her column she writes:

In too many high profile cases divorce seems to be a get-rich-quick solution for wives too busy getting blow dries and manicures to have the first clue what their husband might be making.

Finishing her piece in true Hopkins-style, she urges these women to “[g]o out and get a job”, as opposed to cashing in on their divorce settlements.

Exactly when Hopkins became expert enough on family law to take on the Supreme Court head-to-head, it is not known.

As she seeks to style herself as the next Joshua Rozenberg, it’s not clear whether or not Hopkins is putting herself through a legal crash course. But we doubt she has read the full Sharland and Gohil judgment. If she had, she would’ve seen that this was a decision driven by principle as opposed to circumstance.

Ms Sharland and Ms Gohil were essentially victims of fraud. Supreme Court decisions are binding, and it’d be unjust for the highest court in the land to let a fraudster benefit from his lies and dishonesty. The men may also not have amassed their fortunes without the help and support of their wives. But Hopkins’ typically one-sided article fails to mention this.

Hopkins’ article comes during a period of reinvention for the controversial columnist.

Earlier this month, Hopkins penned a European law-focused piece on David Cameron’s vision for the EU, which was riddled with basic legal errors. Before that, she bizarrely tried to set up “The Society for White Lawyers”.

Despite having no known connections to the profession, the legal commentary just keeps coming. In a series of pseudo-legal recent tweets, Hopkins has turned her hand to, among other things, immigration law, criminal law and privacy law.

Who knows, maybe she’ll be in the Modern Law Review next?


Katie Hopkins writes an article on the European Union — and gets the law horribly wrong [Legal Cheek]