Science writer Simon Singh today triumphed in the key libel battle that began when he was sued for criticisms of chiropractors in a British newspaper two years ago.
Today, the (BCA) dropped its case against Singh, effectively conceding defeat.
The outcome will have implications for freedom of speech in the UK, which has notoriously strict libel laws. It will free journalists and scientists to criticise medical claims as 鈥渂ogus鈥� or unscientific without the risk of having to prove in court that their criticisms are factually correct.
Advertisement
Instead, thanks to a judgment on the Singh case by the UK Court of Appeal earlier this month, defendants will now only need to prove that criticisms amounted to 鈥渉onest opinion鈥� or 鈥渇air comment鈥�.
Scientific law
鈥淭he Court of Appeal ruling is now effectively the law,鈥� says Robert Dougans, the solicitor at the London law firm who fought Singh鈥檚 case. 鈥淚t鈥檚 been a victory on behalf of all scientists, who will now find it much easier to say that their comments amount to 鈥榝air comment鈥�,鈥� he says.
The appeal court ruling two weeks ago made it much harder for the BCA to win its case, because instead of having to prove his criticisms were factually true 鈥� which was the case in the initial hearing 鈥� Singh could now plead that his comments were fair opinion and honestly held.
But the case has come at a huge price for Singh, whose legal costs have so far amounted to 拢200,000, plus two years of lost earnings as a writer while he fought the case.
Dougans said that a further ruling due next week from the Court of Appeal will give guidance about what compensation Singh should now receive. But it鈥檚 unlikely he鈥檒l ever recover all he has lost.
鈥淚鈥檓 really happy that Simon鈥檚 been vindicated, and this is the proudest moment of my professional life, but the sad thing is that he鈥檚 had to fight a case that should never have been brought in the first place,鈥� said Dougans. 鈥淏ut it doesn鈥檛 remove the need for libel reform, and if anything, this case shows how badly we need it.鈥�
Next stop, Parliament
Although the BCA鈥檚 decision to drop the case does leave the Court of Appeal鈥檚 ruling two weeks ago as a precedent in guiding any future cases, and therefore a deterrent to suing, Singh and his supporters hope that Parliament will rewrite libel law from scratch to give people accused of libel the right to defend themselves by saying that their criticisms are in the public interest, as well as being fair comment.
All three major British political parties this week committed themselves to such a libel reform bill should they be elected. 鈥淲e must continue to press for change that protects the public interest from legal bullies,鈥� says Tracey Brown of the campaign group , which supported Singh鈥檚 legal battle.
鈥淥ur libel laws discourage doctors, scientists and journalists from speaking out,鈥� says Singh. 鈥淯nless [they] change urgently and radically, I will not be the last journalist hauled through the libel courts and who will have to face financial disaster and two years of hell simply for raising an important and valid matter of public interest.鈥�
In the original article for which he was sued, Singh spoke out against chiropractors offering back manipulation treatments to children to treat ailments such as asthma, colic or earache.
鈥淥ne of the good things to come out of the past two years is that the chiropractic profession has been put under intense scrutiny,鈥� says Singh. 鈥淥ne in four chiropractors in the UK is now being investigated for making allegedly misleading claims, the Advertising Standards Authority has ruled against many chiropractic claims, and the BCA has removed many claims from its website,鈥� he says. 鈥淣one of this would have happened if I had backed down and the BCA had successfully silenced my article.鈥�
