|
The judgment of the Court of Appeal was given today in the libel case of British Chiropractic Association (BCA) v Dr Singh. The defendant, Dr Singh, is a science writer who wrote an article on The Guardian "Comment and Debate" page. The article was critical of the BCA for claims which they had made that their members can help to treat a variety of illnesses in children. According to the article, these claims were made "even though there is not one jot of evidence" and "this organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments".
Eady J ruled in the High Court that the meaning of Dr Singh's words was that the BCA had acted dishonestly. Dr Singh sought to rely on the defence of fair comment, but Eady J ruled that the article contained defamatory assertions of fact: Dr Singh would have to prove that the assertions were true to defend the case successfully. Dr Singh appealed.
The Court of Appeal overturned Eady J's decision and held that the words complained of were an expression of opinion and did not allege dishonesty. It held that the word "evidence" was, in the context of scientific opinion and debate, a value-laden word, and that scientific opinion was there to debate what was (and was not) worthwhile or reliable evidence. In this context, if the view expressed was that there was not a jot of evidence for one deduction or another, then the natural meaning was that there was no worthwhile or reliable evidence for it. The meaning of the passage was not that the BCA was promoting what it knew to be bogus treatments, but that it was promoting what Dr Singh contended were bogus treatments without regard to the lack of reliable evidence of their effectiveness. The defence of fair comment is therefore now available to Dr Singh.
This case has become a cause célèbre among people campaigning for libel reform. The Court of Appeal expressed concerns about the chilling effect that this litigation had almost certainly had on public debate, which might otherwise have assisted potential patients to make informed choices about the possible use of chiropractic treatment.
A full article is to appear shortly on our website. The full text of the judgment is available here.
Catherine Fehler
330
Simkins' early warning bulletins are for general guidance only. Legal advice should be sought before taking action in relation to specific matters. Where reference is made to Court decisions facts referred to are those reported as found by the Court. Please note that past bulletins included in the Archive have not been updated by any subsequent changes in statute or case law.
<< back to articles & bulletins
|