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 4 | Version 5 |
|---|---|
| Science writer wins libel appeal | Science writer wins libel appeal |
| (10 minutes later) | |
| 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. | 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. |
| Dr 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. |
| The High Court had said the words were fact not opinion - meaning Dr Singh could not use the fair comment defence. | The High Court had said the words were fact not opinion - meaning Dr Singh could not use the fair comment defence. |
| ANALYSIS Clive Coleman Legal affairs analyst | |
| In defending a libel action the difference between a statement of verifiable fact and one of opinion can be crucial. | In defending a libel action the difference between a statement of verifiable fact and one of opinion can be crucial. |
| A defendant who has to justify a statement of fact in a case like this would have to prove that the statement was true. | A defendant who has to justify a statement of fact in a case like this would have to prove that the statement was true. |
| That would involve calling vast amounts of scientific evidence at huge cost. | That would involve calling vast amounts of scientific evidence at huge cost. |
| Defending a statement of opinion, so as long as it is honestly held, is much less onerous and far cheaper. | Defending a statement of opinion, so as long as it is honestly held, is much less onerous and far cheaper. |
| This judgement strongly endorses the view that scientific controversies should be settled by scientific debate, rather than litigation. | This judgement strongly endorses the view that scientific controversies should be settled by scientific debate, rather than litigation. |
| It will make drug companies and organisations providing therapies more cautious in bringing libel actions against those writers and academics who express strong opinion about the ethicacy of their drugs and therapies. | It will make drug companies and organisations providing therapies more cautious in bringing libel actions against those writers and academics who express strong opinion about the ethicacy of their drugs and therapies. |
| 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. | 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. | 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". | 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, Dr Singh suggested there was a lack of evidence for the claims some chiropractors made on treating certain childhood conditions such as colic and asthma. | In the article in April 2008, Dr Singh suggested there was a lack of evidence for the claims some chiropractors made on treating certain childhood conditions such as colic and asthma. |
| The BCA 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 interfere with scientific debates. | The case has become a cause celebre for science journalists and led to calls for defamation law to be rewritten so it would not interfere with scientific debates. |
| TIMELINE: SINGH LIBEL CASE April 2008: Publishes blog on Guardian website criticising British Chiropractic Association. It sues for libelMay 2009: High Court rules article's wording implied BCA was being consciously dishonestFebruary 2010: Challenges ruling at the Court of Appeal, using defence of fair commentApril 2010: Wins appeal on technical point, that the statements can be regarded as comment | TIMELINE: SINGH LIBEL CASE April 2008: Publishes blog on Guardian website criticising British Chiropractic Association. It sues for libelMay 2009: High Court rules article's wording implied BCA was being consciously dishonestFebruary 2010: Challenges ruling at the Court of Appeal, using defence of fair commentApril 2010: Wins appeal on technical point, that the statements can be regarded as comment |
| Tracey Brown, spokeswoman for the Coalition for Libel Reform, said: "We are delighted with the judges' ruling, but it does not go far enough. | 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. | "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." | "A major science journal is also currently being sued and our academics are being told to pull down blogs." |
| British scientific organisation the Royal Institution welcomed the judgement. | British scientific organisation the Royal Institution welcomed the judgement. |
| Director of programmes Gail Cardew said: "It will encourage scientists and the public to discuss evidence freely without fear of legal threat." | Director of programmes Gail Cardew said: "It will encourage scientists and the public to discuss evidence freely without fear of legal threat." |