The creation of this new law has not been an easy process. The Libel Reform Campaign launched on 9 December 2009, bringing together Index on Censorship, English PEN and Sense About Science. We had all identified a simple problem: English libel laws were silencing legitimate criticism and debate — not just in the UK but internationally. London’s High Court was seen as the place to come to silence opponents and critics, whether you were a South African snake-oil salesman or a Saudi sheikh.

Each organisation had already been alarmed by the use of libel laws in England and Wales to silence free speech.

The movement galvanised around the case of Simon Singh vs the British Chiropractic Association. This case, involving the popular science writer’s critique of what he now famously described as the “bogus” claims of alternative medicine, brought the UK’s energetic sceptic community into the fold. Over 100 civil society groups signed up. Novelists, journalists, lawyers and comics — especially comics — also joined. At the same time, English PEN and Index on Censorship had been working on a year-long study on the effects of English libel law on chilling free speech at home and across the globe. The Free Speech For Sale report kicked off a national debate on the impact of these archaic laws.

In March 2010, some of the biggest names in comedy, including Shappi Khorsandi, Tim Minchin and Dara Ó Briain gave their time to perform at the Big Libel Gig fundraiser in London.

An awful lot has happened since that benefit gig. Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz, a serial libel tourist, has died. Mr Justice Eady, the High Court judge at the centre of some of the most contentious libel cases of recent times, has retired. Barack Obama signed the SPEECH Act, a US law specifically designed to protect Americans from London libel rulings. And the Chiropractics lost their case against Singh.

But what did not change was the remarkable loyal support of the thousands of libel reform supporters at home and abroad.

In advance of the 2010 UK election, tens of thousands of people wrote to their MPs telling them to support reform of the libel laws. As a result, all three main parties in the UK pledged to change the law.

When the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government was formed by David Cameron and Nick Clegg after that election, a new defamation bill was one of the few issues both parties agreed on.

It would have been easy then for the 60,000 libel reform supporters to feel that their job had been done, and that now it could be left to the politicians.

But this never happened. Every time there was even a slightest threat to the process of reform, supporters mobilised, often without prompting.

The Libel Reform campaign can be seen, perhaps, as the first successful political campaign of the social media age. Bloggers and tweeters got involved and stayed involved. The #LibelReform hashtag was never dormant.

It was also a good example of parliamentary policy making. Though at times progress seemed slow, the bill went through rounds of scrutiny in an open and transparent manner, with politicians (for the most part!) working together for the common good.

The new law protects free speech. There is a hurdle to stop vexatious cases. We now have a bar on libel tourism so non-EU claimants will now need to prove that harm has been done here. For the first time there will be a statutory public interest defence that will ask defendants to prove they have acted “reasonably” (a better test than the more burdensome Reynold’s test of responsible publication). There is also a hurdle to stop corporations from suing unless they can prove financial harm.

The fight for free speech continues, but today Index would like to thank our partners and supporters for what has been an incredible three-and-a-half-year adventure.

Padraig Reidy is Senior Writer at Index on Censorship. @mePadraigReidy

The post Victory for free speech as libel bill passes appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Disabled critics of ‘fit for work’ scheme have their online support forum axed

Libel threats from Paralympic sponsors Atos Healthcare forced public disability support forum CarerWatch to close in August 2011, after users criticised the company’s record in assessing government disability benefits. The private corporation threatened the internet host with legal action if the site was not plugged. Frances Kelly, the founder of CarerWatch, said at the time: “The sudden disappearance of a support group has caused a lot of distress and fear. Some (members) are ringing us in tears.” After public outcry, CarerWatch is now back online.

Tennis player sues press for reporting on his losing streak

In April 2008, Robert Dee was branded “the world’s worst tennis pro” by the press, after he lost 54 consecutive matches in straight sets in his first three years on the international professional tennis circuit. Whilst Dee’s performance was the worst ever run in the world ranking ITF / ATP tournament’s history, his representatives secured more than 30 settlements from the global media in payments and apologies. Dee lost once again in April 2012 when The Telegraph upheld its comments, becoming the only publication to contest Dee’s claims of defamation and leaving the courtroom victorious.

Icelandic libel tourists take Danish tabloid to UK courts

Danish tabloid newspaper Ekstra Bladet was sued in London by Kaupthing, an investment bank in Iceland, over articles that criticised advice the company had given to clients about tax shelters. Kaupthing claimed UK jurisdiction because some of the critical articles published online had been translated into English and Sigurdur Einarsson, chairman of the bank and subject of some of the articles, was resident in London. Ekstra Bladet was forced to settle the case before it went to trial. The newspaper carried an apology on its website for a month, paid substantial damages and costs to Kaupthing. Editors have since reconsidered their policy of providing English translations of their articles online.

Heart doctor risked losing house in headache-inducing case

NHS cardiologist Dr Peter Wilmshurst battled a four-year legal process after refuting the credibility of a product by US company NMT Medical claiming to eliminate migraines. The medical device manufacturer’s product (pictured) claimed to help by closing small holes in the heart, but when Wilmshurst’s self-designed clinical trial, called MIST, failed, he suggested in a TV interview that there was a fault with the product. Wilmshurst suffered serious financial loss in defending his statement, and the legal action against him only ended when NMT went into liquidation in April 2011.

Spinal trap

Science writer Simon Singh celebrated National Chiropractic Awareness Week by writing an article for the Guardian newspaper critical of the alternative treatment, which he said made “bogus” claims for healing without a “jot of evidence”. The British Chiropractic Association decided to sue, and a long and bitterly fought case followed, with the science of alternative medicine coming under scrutiny. The BCA eventually dropped the case, after judges decided that the article was written from “honest opinion”. But the writer remains considerably out of pocket.

Daisy Williams is an editorial intern at Index on Censorship

The post Five ludicrous libel cases appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Libel reform is no joke appeared first on Index on Censorship.

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

The post Simon Singh wins libel case appeared first on Index on Censorship.

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

The post Simon Singh wins! Relive the drama here appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Presiding at the appeal court in London today in a pre-trial hearing on the meaning of words in a 2008 article by Singh criticising chiropractic treatments, Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge said he was “troubled” by the “artificiality” of the case.

“The opportunities to put this right have not been taken,” Lord Judge said.

He continued: “At the end of this someone will pay an enormous amount of money, whether it be from Dr Singh’s funds or the funds of BCA subscribers.”

He went on to criticise the BCA’s reluctance to publish evidence to back up claims that chiropractic treatments could treat childhood asthma and other ailments.

“I’m just baffled. If there is reliable evidence, why hasn’t someone published it?”

However, Lord Judge stressed that his comments would not affect the judgment of the case before the Court of Appeal.

The Lord Chief Justice was presiding at a pre-trial appeal on meaning in the case of BCA v Singh. Singh is being sued by the organisation for comments in a 2008 article for the Guardian newspaper in which he criticised chiropractic and claimed the BCA promoted “bogus” treatments, despite there not being “a jot” of evidence of their effectiveness.

Judge is part of a panel which also includes the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, and Lord Justice Sedley — one of the most high-powered panels of judges ever to preside on a single case.

Adrienne Page QC, representing Simon Singh, said it was wrong of the BCA to claim that Singh implied it “knowingly” promoted treatments it knew to be ineffective.

“The least likely explanation [of the article] is that the BCA cynically and dishonestly engaged in peddling remedies it knew were of no value,” Page told the court.
Representing the BCA, Heather Rogers QC said the organisation is a respectable one that takes its reputation seriously.

Rogers argued that the use of the word “bogus” suggested that the BCA knew some of the claims made for chiropractic to be false.

Lord Neuberger asked if it was not the case that Singh had outlined his interpretation of the word “bogus” in the original article, where he described how Professor of Complementary Medicine Edzard Ernst had been unable to find any evidence of the effectiveness of chiropractic in over 70 trials.

Rogers conceded that had Singh written that there was “no reliable evidence”, the defamation suit might never have happened.

But Lord Justice Sedley suggested “isn’t the first question as to whether something is evidence that it is reliable?”

Earlier in the day, dozens of Singh’s supporters had gathered outside the court to back the popular author’s right to free expression.

A date has not been set for delivery of the judges’ ruling.

The post Judge ‘baffled’ by Simon Singh chiropractic case appeared first on Index on Censorship.

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.

The post PAST EVENT: Simon Singh v British Chiropractic Association appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Lord Chief Justice will chair Singh appeal appeared first on Index on Censorship.

“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.”

“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.”

The post Index and English Pen to launch libel report appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Chiropractors allege malicious attack in Singh libel case appeared first on Index on Censorship.