Frankie Boyle says he is 'very happy' after winning more than £50,000 in libel damages over an article which called him a 'racist comedian'.
The High Court jury awarded him £50,400 after ruling the Daily Mirror piece had damaged his reputation.
After the verdict, Boyle tweeted: ‘I'm very happy with the jury's decision and their unanimous rejection of the Mirror's allegation that I am a racist.
‘Racism is still a very serious problem in society which is why I've made a point of always being anti-racist in my life and work and that's why I brought this action.
‘I am giving my damages to charity.’
His lawyer David Sherborne told the court last week: 'Calling him vile and offensive is one thing. It goes with the territory. But accusing him of being a racist is an entirely different matter.'
The Mirror had used examples of Boyle's material in its failed attempt to prove its allegations.
But the comic argued he used racist language to parody racists and racist ideas, and claimed that the Mirror had 'misunderstood' the context. And the jury found in his favour.
Their original article also falsely claimed 40-year-old Boyle had been 'forced to quit' Mock The Week, and jurors awarded further damages of £4,250 in that case.
The newspaper defended its article, which was published in July last year, claiming the 'racist' description was either true or 'honest comment on a matter of public interest'.
And they claimed the phrase 'forced to quit' did not mean that Mr Boyle had been sacked and were not defamatory.
On Friday, Mirror Group Newspaper's barrister, Ronald Thwaites QC, claimed the comedian 'doesn't have a sensitive bone in his body’.
He said jurors should not find in the comedian's favour, but that if they did they should show their 'contempt' by awarding damages of just 45p – the price of a copy of the Daily Mirror.
Directing the jury, Mr Justice Eady said: 'There is no dispute about whether the term racist is defamatory. It doesn't matter what, I think of Mr Boyle's humour and whether we are fans of his jokes or not, but whether the term is, on balance or probability damaging to the claimant.'