I was really happy to hear that Simon Singh won his libel appeal. He had the audacity to discuss scientific studies on chiropractic medicine and explain it’s shaky history in an article in Guardian (and later in Trick or Treatment), and for that the British Chiropractic Association sued him for libel.
[At first] the High Court had said the words were fact not opinion – meaning Dr Singh could not use the fair comment defence.
However, the Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger and Lord Justice Sedley ruled High Court judge Mr Justice Eady had “erred in his approach” last May, and allowed Dr Singh’s appeal.
BBC News science correspondent Pallab Ghosh says that, had Justice Eady’s ruling stood, it would have made it difficult for any scientist or science journalist to question claims made by companies or organisations without opening themselves up to a libel action that would be hard to win.
Appealing the case cost £200,000:
Dr Singh described the ruling as “brilliant”, but added that the action had cost £200,000 “just to define the meaning of a few words”.
“After two years of battling in this libel case, at last we’ve got a good decision. So instead of battling uphill we’re fighting with the wind behind us,” he said.
“The Court of Appeal’s made a very wise decision, but it just shouldn’t be so horrendously expensive for a journalist or an academic journal or a scientist to defend what they mean.
“That’s why people back off from saying what they really mean.”
Unfortunately the British Chiropractic Association plans to appeal:
BCA president Richard Brown said: “We are considering whether to seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and subsequently proceed to trial.
“Our original argument remains that our reputation has been damaged. The BCA brought this claim only to uphold its good name and protect its reputation, honesty and integrity”.
That last sentence was a pretty good joke!
That particular part of the law is an absolute travesty; Singh stated facts, those facts damaged the BCA’s reputation and they were able to sue. As soon as Justice Eady acknowledged that what was said was actually true, that should have been the case over there and then. If the BCA’s reputation can’t survive facts, that means its reputation was acquired by lying to people and therefore does not deserve the protection of the law.
In American Law, showing that the statement at issue is factually true is an absolute defense against a charge of Libel. It’s so simple and reasonable, when I found out that Britain did it differently (about a decade ago) I was appalled.
One case where American law is absolutely correct and British law is absolutely an ass.
[dances a little jig]
They both still teach precedent over common sense, mind you ;-)
Stare decisis is da bomb!
IIRC the problem was not whether the treatment was bogus or not but whether members of the BCA knew that. So it’s ok to say the the treatment is a sham but it’s something else to claim that the BCA is full of charlatans. Also this was a comment piece and so comes under different rules to that for factually new i.e. it should have been treated as opinion not fact.
The whole case could have been avoided if the sensible route of getting The Guardian to print a clarification that it wasn’t implying that the BCA were charlatans was used. As they instead choose the route of the courts the cynical side of me says that they wanted to use our libel laws, which are heavily in favour of those can afford it, to “silence” Sing or if I’m being really cynically, as pay back time for his book Trick or Treatment which wasn’t exactly kind to chiropractic.
On a more positive note the BCA may have done everyone a favour by speeding up the process of changing the UK libel law so that scientists can openly discuss issues including CAM and “big evil pharma” without fear of going bankrupt. This would have the same ironic qualities as Christian Voice getting our blasphemy laws removed.
I would like to figure Britain out, but haven’t yet. Europe and the UK seem more progressive on human rights and safety, and less puritanical (guess all the Puritans left England to come here, ha) than the US. Then they go have draconian libel laws.
The article doesn’t open in a new window (I like it when you do open them in a new window, Daniel), and I was too lazy to use the multiple keys to get it to do so. But it was way worth reading for the title “Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger” alone.
Middle click, bro. ;)
You’re a fellow MacTopian. I have a Macbook with a touchpad. The Ctrl- functions really well as a right click, as does a double-fingered tap on the touchpad, after you enable taps in the setup. (Which I’d forgotten till just now, heh.) Guess I’ll have to go for the slightly less consistent, but lazy-coddling double tap. Heh. Too bad chuckling doesn’t come through in email. :)
Besides, ya just never know when you’ll get such a totally worthwhile treat as this dude’s ( snicker *snerk*) title.
Claidheamh,
It very much depends on where you go and who you believe. Being fairly well traveled within Europe, I can tell you for a plain fact that there are places in Britain every bit as racist as any Southern States hick-town you could care to mention – and there are places in Italy and Spain in particular which are much, much, much worse. Continental Europe also has its share of religious zealots – I’ve seen Catholic shrines on the hills around Como that would make any Baptist blink, I’ve seen houses in the Black Forest with twenty foot high crucifixes outside the front door and I’ve seen a lot more besides. The difference is that here they are massively in the minority and they have no real voice – intelligent people largely ignore them. Look at Tony Blair – we’re so scornful of religion that he couldn’t even admit being a Christian until after he’d resigned as Prime Minister. Then there’s Nick Clegg, leader of the third largest (could be becoming the second largest this year) political party, the Liberal Democrats – he’s openly atheist.
Britain’s law problem comes largely from having a very old system. You have to remember that we got our last civil war out of the way before anybody but Vikings, Eskimos and Native Americans had even seen the US – and our legal system is even older than that, dating it’s origins back to just after the First Crusade of King Richard and the signing of the Magna Carta. We do have a law which says that if any law falls into disuse for a long period, it is no longer law – for example, there was a local ordinance which proclaimed it legal to shoot a Welsh man with a longbow in Chepstow town square around the hour of midnight which no longer has the force of law because it’s not used (I’m being entirely serious about that old law, by the way).
We also have a lot of laws which were interpreted in the courts by judges who stood to benefit from their own rulings (one judge effectively legalised tax avoidance many years ago, a judgement which still stands because rich MPs and Lords wont alter it so they have to stop using avoidance schemes and actually pay their taxes). That form of corruption is (hopefully) a thing of the past, but past judgments still stand.
But it was way worth reading for the title “Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger” alone.
Lord Rolls Neuburger.
LOL.
“Our original argument remains that our reputation has been damaged. The BCA brought this claim only to uphold its good name and protect its reputation, honesty and integrity”
Sounds like the Catholic Church to me.
If the BCA really wants to protect “its reputation, honesty and integrity” then they should find it, and, carefully with a pair of fine tweezers, place it in a matchbox stuffed with cotton wool.
Pingback: Beware the Spinal Trap by Simon Singh | Unreasonable Faith