06 Apr 10 | Uncategorized
Once in a while, in these days of antagonism towards the political-legal establishment, something happens that gladdens the heart. The ruling yesterday by three of the UK’s most senior judges in the long-running defamation case against the science writer Simon Singh was one such moment.
The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, and his appeals panel have not just ruled against a critical aspect in the case brought by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA). They have set a precedent that should make it considerably harder for organisations to try it on in this way in the future.
For Index on Censorship and our partner organisations, this marks the latest victory in our campaign to reform England’s hideous libel laws. Since we launched our 10 proposals for change last November, we have seen public opinion shift steadily in our favour, with the law struggling to keep up.
Singh’s two-year campaign has already cost him £200,000 in fees. It is testament to his courage that he has seen it through. Time and again in recent years other scientists, authors, journalists and NGOs have decided to settle, and to apologise, simply for fear of destitution. Too often they have had nothing to apologise for, but have been bullied into it.
In his ruling, Lord Judge condemns the use of protracted litigation for its “chilling effect on public debate”. The judgment made clear that Singh’s negative remarks on chiropractic care were “honest opinion”, rather than a statement of fact, thus sparing him the need to prove his case through evidence – and delivering a telling rebuff to the libel-judge-in-chief, Justice Eady, who had ruled against Singh last May.
“[Singh’s] opinion may be mistaken,” the panel said, “but to allow the party which has been denounced on the basis of it to compel its author to prove in court what he has asserted by way of argument is to invite the court to become an Orwellian Ministry of Truth”.
The courts must still adjudicate on the claim for defamation, but on the strength of this verdict, the BCA will be under considerable pressure to withdraw its claim.
John Kampfner is Chief Executive of Index on Censorship
01 Apr 10 | News and features, United Kingdom
Simon Singh today scored a crucial victory in his libel defence against the British Chiropractic Association.
In a judgment [PDF 73KB] handed down at 9.30 this morning, the Lord Chief Justice ruled that Singh’s contention that the BCA promoted “bogus” treatments was “a statement of opinion, and one backed by reasons”. Singh may now pursue a defence of “fair comment”.
The judgment criticised the BCA, saying its action had created an “unhappy impression” that the case was “an endeavour by the BCA to silence one of its critics”.
The judge added: “if that is where the current law of defamation takes us, we must apply it.”
Addressing the effect of lengthy, costly libel trials on public debate and medicine, the judge commented: “It is now nearly two years since the publication of the offending article. It seems unlikely that anyone would dare repeat the opinions expressed by Dr Singh for fear of a writ. Accordingly this litigation has almost certainly had a chilling effect on public debate which might otherwise have assisted potential patients to make informed choices about the possible use of chiropractic.”
Speaking outside the court, alongside MPs from all three major parties, Singh stressed that while he was pleased with the ruling, the case for libel reform remained. Singh’s case could still potentially continue for another two years.
Full PDF of Court of Appeal judgment BCA vs Singh [73KB]
The BCA has issued a statement saying it is considering its position in the light of the ruling. Richard Brown, President of the BCA concludes:
We are of course disappointed to lose the appeal, but this is not the end of the road and we are considering whether to seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and subsequently proceed to trial. Our original argument remains that our reputation has been damaged. To reiterate, the BCA brought this claim only to uphold its good name and protect its reputation, honesty and integrity.
Simon Singh Statement
READ SIMON’S STATEMENT HERE
Former Minister Denis MacShane MP, who was at the Court of Appeal this morning to support Simon Singh’s successful appeal said :
“This is an important victory but it should not be an excuse to lessen the pressure for a major overhaul of libel law. London remains the libel tourist capital of the world and it is time the oligarchs and pharmaceutical companies stopped hiring London lawyers and finding London judges to attack journals and journalists who may not even be based in London. When parliament comes back after the election all three parties should commit to an immediate reform of libel law to allow swift settlements at reasonable cost and to uphold freedom of expression rather than weaken it as the present libel law system operating in London allows.”
MacShane is Labour MP for Rotherham and a former president of the National Union of Journalists.
31 Mar 10 | Index Index, minipost, Uncategorized
The American games company Envoy has dropped its libel suit against the English blogger Bruce Everiss. Envoy was suing Everiss for libel in an Australian court over a series of blogposts on Everiss’ website, bruceongames.com, in which he had claimed that Envoy had previously been owned by a Chinese company, UMGE, linked to a Chinese “gold-farming” business. Everis alleged UMGE employed low-paid workers to earn virtual money in online games, and then sold it, against the game’s rules, to other players. Envoy dropped the case, halfway through its second day, telling reporters that the decision was driven by criticism from its customers.
24 Mar 10 | Uncategorized
This article originally appeared on Comment is free
Jack Straw’s announcement yesterday on libel law reform marks a significant sea change. Ten months ago, the justice secretary told the select committee inquiry on libel, privacy and press standards that he had yet to be convinced that there was a significant problem with libel tourism – where foreign claimants bring their cases to English courts. He is now proposing to limit the ease with which foreign claimants can be heard in this jurisdiction, as well as introducing a single publication rule and considering a statutory defence to protect publications that are in the public interest. He has, in short, acknowledged that the balance was tipped too far in favour of protecting reputation at the expense of free expression.
His support for reform is testament to the lobbying power of a rarealliance of campaigners who provided compelling evidence that libel reform was not simply about protecting the interests of the media establishment, but about safeguarding the free speech of the public as a whole – whether it’s the freedom of a cardiologist to critique a surgical device or the freedom of a science writer to question the efficacy of alternative medicine. Proposals for reform that seemed unpopular and unfeasible just a year ago now sound like common sense. The select committee’s whole-hearted support for reform in its report on privacy, libel and press standards last month was, without doubt, an important endorsement and the final push for change.
This is not, however, the end of the story. One of Straw’s more controversial changes – slashing lawyers’ success fees in conditional fee agreements – is now being threatened with judicial review and it’s likely that his latest proposals will meet with further resistance. Nor are all the justice secretary’s proposals secure: Straw has announced that no more than “consideration” will be given to one of the most important reforms of all – creating a statutory public interest defence. For NGOs investigating corruption and scientists criticising treatments, this remains a much-needed protection. Over the past few months, NGOs (Index on Censorship, English Pen and Sense about Science) have sent evidence to the libel reform campaign that details the extent to which fear of libel action is inhibiting publication of research that is clearly in the public interest.
Furthermore, while the welcome introduction of a single publication rule goes a long way towards rescuing the internet from the tyranny of a 19th-century precedent, which has ensured that every download of a story was a new publication and therefore potentially a new libel suit, there is still need for enlightened reform. Mr Justice Eady, much reviled for being the bane of free speech, wisely suggested last month that there was need for an international agreement that would address the new challenges posed by the internet. Let’s hope that Labour can follow through its promise of a libel reform bill in the next parliament. While Dominic Grieve dismissed the proposals yesterday as “pre-election posturing”, Jack Straw’s blow for free speech prompted the Conservative party to declare its strongest support to date for reform. Let’s hope they all mean it.
