This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk/8598472.stm

The article has changed 10 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Science writer wins libel appeal Science writer wins libel appeal
(40 minutes later)
A science writer has won the right in the Appeal Court to rely on the defence of fair comment in a libel action. A science writer has won the right to rely on the defence of fair comment in a libel action, in a landmark ruling at the Court of Appeal.
Simon Singh was accused of libel by the British Chiropractic Association over an article in the Guardian in 2008.Simon Singh was accused of libel by the British Chiropractic Association over an article in the Guardian in 2008.
Mr Singh questioned the claims of some chiropractors over the treatment of certain childhood conditions. Dr Singh questioned the claims of some chiropractors over the treatment of certain childhood conditions.
High Court judge Mr Justice Eady said last May the comments were factual not opinion - meaning Mr Singh could not use the defence of fair comment. 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 the High Court judge had "erred in his approach" and allowed Mr Singh's appeal. 'Meaning of words'
Mr Singh described the ruling as "brilliant". 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.
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."He said: "It is extraordinary this action has cost £200,000 to establish the meaning of a few words."
In the article in April 2008, Mr Singh suggested there was a lack of evidence for the claims over conditions such as colic and asthma. In the article in April 2008, Dr Singh suggested there was a lack of evidence for the claims over conditions such as colic and asthma.
The British Chiropractic Association alleged that Mr Singh had effectively accused its leaders of knowingly supporting bogus treatments. The British Chiropractic Association alleged that Dr Singh had effectively accused its leaders of knowingly supporting bogus treatments.
The case has become a cause celebre for science journalists and led to calls for defamation law to be rewritten so it would not intefere with scientific debates.
Standard of proof
Tracey Brown, spokeswoman for the Coalition for Libel Reform, said: "We are delighted with the judges' ruling, but it does not go far enough.
"There is a cardiologist currently being sued by a device manufacturer, we have researchers who have been unable to publish their critique of lie detector technology because of threats of libel action.
"A major science journal is also currently being sued and our academics are being told to pull down blogs."
BBC News 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.