Simon Singh kinda sorta wins, in a way…

« previous post | next post »

Today the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) finally dropped its disgraceful libel suit against the science writer Simon Singh, because Singh had won a Supreme Court judgment that restored his right to use the most obviously fair defense: that what he said was fair comment by a journalist stating his opinions on a matter of public concern. See the details in this article in The Times or this article in The Independent. We should celebrate this victory; but no one should think that it means things are now all right regarding freedom of speech for journalists in England. Singh is quite likely to lose about $90,000 of his own money, as well as the 45 weeks of his time, that he spent preparing a defense against the BCA's shameful lawsuit. The English libel law is still a crock, and desperately needs reform. In fact Singh is not the only science writer or scientist facing a libel action right now: Peter Wilmshurst still faces a suit by a company whose heart device he said was not safe.



7 Comments

  1. Stephen Jones said,

    April 16, 2010 @ 10:16 am

    Most of the suggestions to reform the libel law are a tabloid journalist's paradise, which is why they are so popular in the press.

    The truth is the law is perfectly adequate, and on a par with that in the rest of the world outside the US. The problem is the absurdly high level of legal costs, that have nothing to do with the actual legislation.

  2. Ginger Yellow said,

    April 16, 2010 @ 11:04 am

    "The truth is the law is perfectly adequate, and on a par with that in the rest of the world outside the US."

    Nonsense. There are many pernicious aspects of English libel law that are essentially unique to England (with the partial exception of Anglophone ex-colonies like Australia). The jurisdictional claims of English libel law, for instance, far exceed anything found elsewhere.

  3. Sili said,

    April 16, 2010 @ 11:51 am

    Just as important is the reversed burden of proof.

    And it's not as if the tabloids are particularly cowed by the law as it stands.

  4. Stephen Jones said,

    April 16, 2010 @ 1:53 pm

    The jurisdictional claims of English libel law, for instance, far exceed anything found elsewhere.

    As far as the EU is concerned they are covered by an EU directorate. In order to sue in the UK you need to have a reputation to lose there. And 'libel tourism' is almost non-existent if you look at the figures.

    Just as important is the reversed burden of proof.

    Nonsense. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that the accusation is defamatory and has caused him damage. Only after that has been proved does the defendant have to allege fair comment or truth (the latter being an absolute defense) or due diligence.

  5. Jon said,

    April 16, 2010 @ 9:03 pm

    @ Stephen Jones

    Spot on.

    I'm not sure what's more tiresome: the failure of the critics to recognise that the law of defamation is there to protect the little guy too (see e.g. Lillie v Newcastle City Council), or the lack of political will to restrict costs except when the insurance lobby kicks up a stink.

    There is nothing wrong with the substantive law of defamation. The real scandal is the cost of litigation.

  6. Dan T. said,

    April 17, 2010 @ 1:21 pm

    You mean "little guys" like the activists who got sued for defamation by McDonald's in the infamous "McLibel" trial?

    Britain has some of the world's most outrageous tabloids, so that particular business doesn't seem to be hampered all that much by their laws; it's just people trying to express more reasonable opinions about things that get socked with frivolous but expensive lawsuits.

  7. Jon said,

    April 17, 2010 @ 7:17 pm

    You mean Steel and Morris, who published a leaflet full of damaging lies about McDonald's, who insisted on taking a hopeless case to trial, and who then wasted everyone's time and money running spurious lines of defence and bringing a dumb counterclaim?

    I'm afraid they deserved everything they got (or should have got — if I remember rightly McDonald's chose not to enforce the judgment in the end).

RSS feed for comments on this post