This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jun/21/sally-morgan-tv-psychic-libel-payout
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Sally Morgan: how could a TV psychic win a libel payout? | Sally Morgan: how could a TV psychic win a libel payout? |
| (4 months later) | |
| This article is the subject of a complaint made by agents acting on behalf of Sally Morgan Enterprises Ltd. | |
| The libel settlement won by "Psychic Sally" Morgan on Thursday from the Daily Mail was greeted with incredulity and not a little anger in some quarters. | The libel settlement won by "Psychic Sally" Morgan on Thursday from the Daily Mail was greeted with incredulity and not a little anger in some quarters. |
| Richard Dawkins tweeted: "England, libel capital of the world. Psychics – and charlatans of all kinds – rich pickings to be had in the English law courts." | Richard Dawkins tweeted: "England, libel capital of the world. Psychics – and charlatans of all kinds – rich pickings to be had in the English law courts." |
| How, some asked, when no one can talk to the dead, can someone who claims to do so successfully sue for libel? | How, some asked, when no one can talk to the dead, can someone who claims to do so successfully sue for libel? |
| Well, because the libel claim had it gone to court would not actually have depended on their supposed psychic abilities, but on the truth or otherwise of a very specific allegation – that Morgan was receiving messages from her staff via an earpiece. | Well, because the libel claim had it gone to court would not actually have depended on their supposed psychic abilities, but on the truth or otherwise of a very specific allegation – that Morgan was receiving messages from her staff via an earpiece. |
| When it emerged the staff supposedly saying something to her were not her employees after all, but theatre staff, that defence looked untenable. | When it emerged the staff supposedly saying something to her were not her employees after all, but theatre staff, that defence looked untenable. |
| What is more, libel gets notoriously hard when you start talking about motive and what you believe people know – such as saying, or implying, Morgan knowingly deceived the public. That relies on being able to prove Morgan did not believe in her own abilities, which would be very difficult indeed. | What is more, libel gets notoriously hard when you start talking about motive and what you believe people know – such as saying, or implying, Morgan knowingly deceived the public. That relies on being able to prove Morgan did not believe in her own abilities, which would be very difficult indeed. |
| Of course people are entitled to an opinion about psychics, and to express such an opinion in as forthright a way as they want. They are at liberty to say that the abilities claimed by psychics simply do not exist. These opinions are defended by the honest comment defence – that it is you honestly-held opinion based on the facts of the psychic's claims and performance. | Of course people are entitled to an opinion about psychics, and to express such an opinion in as forthright a way as they want. They are at liberty to say that the abilities claimed by psychics simply do not exist. These opinions are defended by the honest comment defence – that it is you honestly-held opinion based on the facts of the psychic's claims and performance. |
| However, if you go further than talking about your own opinion and state or imply that the psychic concerned knows that she has no such powers and is therefore deceiving and defrauding her audience, then you have gone too far. That is accusing the psychic of acting out of improper motives and such a claim can damage or even destroy an honest comment defence. | However, if you go further than talking about your own opinion and state or imply that the psychic concerned knows that she has no such powers and is therefore deceiving and defrauding her audience, then you have gone too far. That is accusing the psychic of acting out of improper motives and such a claim can damage or even destroy an honest comment defence. |
| A rule of thumb might be – express an opinion about what people do, not what you think they are thinking when they do it. | A rule of thumb might be – express an opinion about what people do, not what you think they are thinking when they do it. |
| However, as others including media lawyer David Allen Green have suggested a libel court was not the best place to resolve this dispute. Many of those sceptical about psychics and the powers they claim would have liked to see this settled once and for all with a scientific testing of Sally Morgan's claimed powers. | However, as others including media lawyer David Allen Green have suggested a libel court was not the best place to resolve this dispute. Many of those sceptical about psychics and the powers they claim would have liked to see this settled once and for all with a scientific testing of Sally Morgan's claimed powers. |
| That was the approach adopted by the court of appeal in the case when Simon Singh was sued by the British Chiropractic Association. It would have been useful to see whether a court in this action would adopt a similar line. Sadly that is not what we saw this week. | That was the approach adopted by the court of appeal in the case when Simon Singh was sued by the British Chiropractic Association. It would have been useful to see whether a court in this action would adopt a similar line. Sadly that is not what we saw this week. |
| David Banks is a journalist and media law consultant | David Banks is a journalist and media law consultant |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. | Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |