Defamation and the strange case of Simon Singh
Simon Singh is an alumnus of Imperial College, London and a well known writer on scientific issues generally.
In April 2008 he published an article in the Guardian criticising chiropractors.
While Singh freely admitted the efficacy of the chiropractors' treatment for back problems he went on to say:-
"The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections,asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments."
The BCA did not take kindly to this piece and sued Singh , not the Guardian, in libel.
The case came before Mr. Justice Eady in the High Court.
Because Singh had used the word "bogus" he could not rely on a defence of "fair comment" even though Singh had published extensive research to support his claims.
The use of the word "bogus" shifted the burden of proof on to Singh who then had to prove, according to Mr. Justice Eady, that chiropractors were dishonest. Singh would have to show that chiropractors were quacks promoting ideas which they did not believe in.
Singh had never suggested this. He did not doubt the sincerity of chiropractors. He merely quetioned their claims.
Eady found in favour of the BCA and refused leave to appeal.
The Court of Appeal has since given Singh leave and the case is set to be heard tomorrow.
The issue here is the use of libel laws in this country to stifle genuine scientific debate on issues which affect us all.
Singh recently said:-
"The current libel laws force many academics and writers to back down on matters that they believe to be accurate; this is simply because they do not have the funds to back their beliefs. Free speech should not depend on whether or not someone is rich or powerful."
Simon Singh is not alone. In 2008 the UN Human Rights Committee condemned english libel judgments because they discouraged "critical media reporting on matters of serious public interest."
The Court of Appeal heard
The Court of Appeal heard this case on 23th February not the 22nd.
It seems the judgement is awaited.
Accounts of the hearing are
Accounts of the hearing are emerging.
Some quotes:-
Lord Justice Sedley - Is the court "turning itself into a forum of epidermiological expertise and pronouncement?".
Lord Lodge - On BCA's assertion that chiropractors could treat asthma, colic and other childhood illnesses - " I'm just baffled. If there is reliable evidence , why hasn't someone published it?"
Lord Lodge - "How much is all this costing?"
Bob Dylan - "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."
Simon Singh's appeal was
Simon Singh's appeal was successful in that the Court of Appeal have held his remarks to be comment rather than allegations of fact and that therefore the defence of "fair comment" is available to him.
I believe the case will now be remitted to the High Court for trial on that basis.
It appears that the Guardian newspaper in which Singh's article first appeared offered to print a response from the BCA but this was refused. The court said that by suing Singh personally "the unhappy impression has been created that this is an endeavour by the BCA to silence one of it's critics."
The judges also called for scientific debates to be resolved using science - not libel writs.
In addition the judges recommended that fair comment be renamed "honest opinion" as this "would lend greater emphasis to its importance as an essential ingredient of the right to free expression."
The BCA may of course appeal this decision to the Supreme Court.
The BCA have decided not to
The BCA have decided not to proceed with this case.
This decision must have been taken after the BCA took note of the attitude of the Court of Appeal.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/apr/01/simon-singh-wins-libel-court