Posts Tagged ‘Simon Singh’
April 15th, 2010
Simon Singh wins! The British Chiropractic Association(BCA) has today served a Notice of Discontinuance bringing to an end its libel claim against Dr Simon Singh. The science writer was accused of libel for an article in which he cast doubt on chiropractors’ claims of success in treatment of childhood conditions including colic, ear infections, asthma.
Earlier this month Simon Singh scored a crucial victory in his libel defence against the British Chiropractic Association. In a judgment handed down by the court of appeal, the Lord Chief Justice ruled that Singh’s contention that the BCA promoted “bogus” treatments was “a statement of opinion, and one backed by reasons”.
The judgment allowed Singh to pursue a defence of “fair comment”, the ruling could have a defining effect on the entire concept of “fair comment” in English libel law.
Update: Read the BCA’s statement here
PLUS: A good week for libel reform. All the major political parties now back change — and the campaign celebrates 50,000 signatures in support of libel reform
From the Index on Censorship archives: Floyd Abrams’s on libel Through the looking-glass
Timeline
2008 April Singh publishes an article about chiropractic in the Guardian
2008 July The British Chiropractic Association (BCA) sues Singh personally for libel
2009 May High Court gives a negative ruling on the meaning of Singh’s article
2009 June Singh asks for permission to appeal the ruling on meaning (paper application)
2009 July Mr Justice Eady rejects the application to appeal
2009 August Oral hearing on leave to appeal
2009 October Leave to appeal granted
2010 February Lord Chief Justice says he is “baffled” by case
2010 April 1 Decision on meaning of original Singh article
April 1st, 2010
Simon Singh today scored a crucial victory in his libel defence against the British Chiropractic Association.
In a judgment [PDF 73KB] handed down at 9.30 this morning, the Lord Chief Justice ruled that Singh’s contention that the BCA promoted “bogus” treatments was “a statement of opinion, and one backed by reasons”. Singh may now pursue a defence of “fair comment”.
The judgment criticised the BCA, saying its action had created an “unhappy impression” that the case was “an endeavour by the BCA to silence one of its critics”.
The judge added: “if that is where the current law of defamation takes us, we must apply it.”
Addressing the effect of lengthy, costly libel trials on public debate and medicine, the judge commented: “It is now nearly two years since the publication of the offending article. It seems unlikely that anyone would dare repeat the opinions expressed by Dr Singh for fear of a writ. Accordingly this litigation has almost certainly had a chilling effect on public debate which might otherwise have assisted potential patients to make informed choices about the possible use of chiropractic.”
Speaking outside the court, alongside MPs from all three major parties, Singh stressed that while he was pleased with the ruling, the case for libel reform remained. Singh’s case could still potentially continue for another two years.
Full PDF of Court of Appeal judgment BCA vs Singh [73KB]
The BCA has issued a statement saying it is considering its position in the light of the ruling. Richard Brown, President of the BCA concludes:
We are of course disappointed to lose the appeal, but this is not the end of the road and 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. To reiterate, the BCA brought this claim only to uphold its good name and protect its reputation, honesty and integrity.
Simon Singh Statement
READ SIMON’S STATEMENT HERE
Former Minister Denis MacShane MP, who was at the Court of Appeal this morning to support Simon Singh’s successful appeal said :
“This is an important victory but it should not be an excuse to lessen the pressure for a major overhaul of libel law. London remains the libel tourist capital of the world and it is time the oligarchs and pharmaceutical companies stopped hiring London lawyers and finding London judges to attack journals and journalists who may not even be based in London. When parliament comes back after the election all three parties should commit to an immediate reform of libel law to allow swift settlements at reasonable cost and to uphold freedom of expression rather than weaken it as the present libel law system operating in London allows.”
MacShane is Labour MP for Rotherham and a former president of the National Union of Journalists.
For all the related tweets, quotes and coverage scroll through our live coverage
February 23rd, 2010
The Lord Chief Justice expressed surprise today at the BCA’s libel suit against Simon Singh. Padraig Reidy reports
(more…)
February 19th, 2010
Index on Censorship readers have two chances to show their support for Simon Singh on Monday the 22nd and Tuesday 23 February.
(more…)
January 21st, 2010
*Please note change in date, originally listed as 22 February
An appeal against a 2008 ruling handed down by Mr Justice Eady in favour of the British Chiropractic Association. It pursued Singh for libel after he wrote an article published in The Guardian that criticised the view that chiropractors can cure disease by manipulating the spine.
Hearing date: 23 February 2010*
Judges and court: Court of Appeal; Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger, Lord Justice Sedley.
December 11th, 2009
The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, is to chair the bench in what could be a landmark hearing for libel law in England. Lord Judge will preside over science writer Simon Singh’s appeal against an earlier ruling on meaning in the case he is defending against the British Chiropractic Association.
Read more
here
November 5th, 2009
Launch of the Libel Reform campaign and the English PEN and Index on Censorship “Free Speech Is Not For Sale” report
12 – 2pm, 10th November 09. Light lunch provided.
Free Word Centre, 60 Farringdon Road, EC1R 3GA
Index on Censorship and English PEN fear:
“We’re becoming a global free speech pariah”
“Our libel laws allow people accused of funding terrorism or dumping toxic waste in Africa to silence their critics whilst ‘super-injunctions’ stop the public from even knowing that such allegations exist. We need to reform our libel laws now, and that’s why we’re launching a national campaign to persuade our politicians to do so.”
Jonathan Heawood, Director of English PEN
“If we don’t act we’re at risk of becoming a global pariah. There are US States who view English libel law as so damaging to free speech they have passed laws to effectively block the decisions of English judges. Our report is an important milestone in modernising our antiquated and chilling approach to free expression.”
John Kampfner, the CEO of Index on Censorship
English PEN and Index on Censorship will be publishing their report on English libel law reform, and launching the Libel Reform campaign, at the Free Word Centre on 10 November.
English PEN and Index on Censorship have been looking into these issues in detail for over a year now and it has become increasingly clear that English libel law and the use of ‘super-injunctions’ are having a profoundly negative impact on freedom of expression, both in the UK and abroad. Writers such as Simon Singh, and respected current affairs programme Newsnight, have found themselves facing defamation suits, whilst human rights campaigners are often forced to edit and retract articles in the face of potential libel action.
The Libel Reform campaign will bring together Index on Censorship and English PEN to mount a national campaign with a website launched on 10 November to persuade politicians from all parties of the importance of reforming these unjust laws.
Update: Read the Independent’s interview with Index on Censorship’s John Kampfner here
October 15th, 2009
Simon Singh, the science writer who yesterday (Oct 14) won the right to appeal a preliminary judgment in a case brought against him by the British Chiropractic Association, has been accused of “maliciously” attacking the organisation.
In a statement published on its website, the BCA claimed its defamation suit was not an attack on free speech. The statement continued:
“The BCA supports and would never seek to stifle legitimate open scientific debate. However, this action is actually a simple libel claim based on the fact that the BCA was maliciously attacked by Dr. Singh in the Guardian newspaper. When given the opportunity to retract his words and apologise, Dr. Singh refused. This claim has been brought to restore the good reputation of the BCA and that of its members.”
More at Jack of Kent
UPDATE: The BCA has
redrafted its statement, replacing the words “maliciously attacked” with “libelled”.
