LIVERPOOL libel lawyers urged a cautious reaction to the news that a defamation case against a science writer had been dropped.
Simon Singh was sued by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) after he wrote that the BCA “happily promotes bogus treatments”.
But the BCA served notice of discontinuance of the action on Thursday.
Its move followed a Court of Appeal decision on April 1 to overturn Mr Justice Eady’s finding Dr Singh’s article was a statement of fact.
That had meant Dr Singh would not have been able to use the fair comment defence in the libel action.
But the Court of Appeal held that what Dr Singh had written was a statement of opinion that was backed by reasons.
It also made clear its view that the courts were not the correct forum for settling scientific disputes.
Responding to the move, Kirwan’s Philip Gray told LDP Legal: “Whilst the decision gives scientists comfort, it is unlikely to appease campaigners for libel reform who are likely to use the judgment to pile further pressure on the incoming Government to give greater freedom to writers to publish without fear of law suits.
“It is well worth remembering that Dr Singh’s case was heard under the existing libel laws, which protected him. It is vital that any statutory changes to the law are fully considered and balance the competing interests of both sides [in the libel debate]. At present, there is a real danger that changes may be drafted to appease the interested parties on one side.”
Mr Gray’s comments came after free speech campaigners had seized on the judgment as evidence of the need for libel reform.
On the judgment, John Kampfner, chief executive of Index on Censorship, said: “Any reforms will have to ensure that a case like Simon’s never happens again. We will maintain pressure on the major parties to keep their manifesto pledges and reform our archaic, unfair libel laws.”
Commenting on the fine line between fair and unfair comment, libel lawyer Paul Walton, a partner with Hill Dickinson, told LDP Legal: “Anyone is entitled to express an honest opinion and expression of an honest opinion will not get you a claim for libel. If you think it’s ineffective medicine, that’s fine.
“But to say that chiropractitioners are dishonest or are mean and robbing the public for no good reason, then that would be offensive and you would expect trouble. It’s only when you get something positively factually wrong that affects someone’s reputation, that’s when someone’s entitled to sue and they should be entitled to sue in that situation.”
Dr Singh’s article had appeared on a page marked Comment and Debate in The Guardian, in April, 2008. In it, he criticised chiropractic and the BCA’s claims that its members could help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying “even though there is not a jot of evidence”.
