By BBC
Added: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:00:00 UTC

Thanks to Jon Smith for the link.
Original link

Simon Singh was accused of libel by the British Chiropractic Association over an article in the Guardian in 2008.

Dr Singh questioned the claims of some chiropractors over the treatment of certain childhood conditions.

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 the High Court ruling stood, science journalists would have required a very high standard of proof to defend libel cases.

Dr Singh described the ruling as "brilliant".

He said: "It is extraordinary this action has cost £200,000 to establish the meaning of a few words."
...
Continue reading

---

Judgment in Simon Singh libel case

from sense about science

The judgment in Science writer Simon Singh’s appeal in his libel case with the British Chiropractic Association was handed down at the Royal Courts of Justice this morning.

The judgment stated that the appeal must be allowed.

Simon Singh has been fighting his case for two years and has already spent £200,000. The case could cost £1 million and Singh will never recover all his costs. He said:

Robert Dougans, Associate at Bryan Cave LLP, said:

“I’m very pleased that the Court of Appeal has ruled in favour of Dr. Singh. We have all worked very hard in this case and the appeal, and it is a wonderful feeling to win such a resounding victory before such an impressive court. Scientists have been - rightly - concerned about the consequences they might face if opponents seek to counter their arguments with a libel claim rather than by engaging in debate and research. The Court of Appeal’s brave decision today gives hope that important research on scientific matters will be protected against libel threats, and will hopefully make people think again before embarking on legal action hoping to shut down debate. It is clear from the judgment that the Court of Appeal is not satisfied with the current state of English libel laws, and recognises the absurdities and injustices that can result from them as they currently stand. Whilst this decision should not obscure the urgent need for libel reform, I am very glad that Simon has received such good news.”

Tracey Brown, Sense About Science:

“Until we have a public interest defence we will see more cases like this. It is ludicrous that something that should be as straight forward as knowing whether your words are defensible should be so complicated to establish.”

Allen Green, writer of the 2010 Orwell Prize Longlisted Blog “Jack of Kent”:

“It has taken nearly two years and thousands of pounds for Simon to prevail today. His victory is cheering, but for him to have got here has been a complex, depressing, and obscenely expensive journey. This is not an example of the English libel laws working. Instead it is a horrifying example of how bad they really are. For him to have to struggle to win in this way signals the urgent need for libel reform”.
...
Continue reading

TAGGED: LAW, MEDICINE

---

Tweet