Court of Appeal Backs Bryan Cave Client Scientist Simon Singh

The Court of Appeal today handed down its judgment in favour of the science writer Dr. Simon Singh in his appeal against the decision of Mr. Justice Eady in the libel claim brought against him by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA). Bryan Cave lawyer Robert Dougans represents Singh in this victory.

The BCA claim arose from a comment piece written by Singh in April 2008 in The Guardian in which he criticised BCA claims that chiropractic could help treat childhood conditions such as colic, ear infections and feeding problems as being “bogus” and without “a jot of evidence” to support them. The case has been listed by The Lawyer as one of the top 10 cases to watch in 2010.
 
England’s two senior judges, the Lord Chief Justice of England and the Master of the Rolls, together with Lord Justice Sedley, one of the most respected judges on the Court of Appeal, ruled that Singh’s words in the article were expressions of opinion and rejected the submissions of the BCA case that “not a jot of evidence” was a statement of fact and that “happily promotes bogus treatments” was a conscious accusation of dishonesty on the part of the BCA. The Court of Appeal made it clear that the natural meaning of the phrase “not a jot of evidence” was “no worthwhile or reliable evidence,” which was clearly an expression of opinion capable of being fair comment.

“I am very pleased that the Court of Appeal has ruled in favour of Dr. Singh,” Dougans said. “We have all worked very hard in this case and the appeal, and it is a wonderful feeling to win such a resounding victory before such an impressive court.”

The Court of Appeal also was critical of the way the BCA commenced libel proceedings against Dr. Singh, rather than taking up The Guardian’s offer of a right of reply and to publish the scientific evidence upon which it relied. The Court of Appeal recognised that the claim would have shut down debate on the issues raised, which it described as “a surprising consequence of laws designed to protect reputation.”

In a development which will strengthen the position of any scientific writers facing libel threats, the Court of Appeal also adopted the words of Judge Easterbrook in the case of Underwager v Salter 22 Fed. 3d 730 (1994) where he held that:

“[Plaintiffs] cannot, by simply filing suit and crying ‘character assassination!’, silence those who hold divergent views, no matter how adverse those views may be to plaintiffs’ interests. Scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation. … More papers, more discussion, better data, and more satisfactory models – not larger awards of damages – mark the path towards superior understanding of the world around us.”

In addition, the Court was disturbed at the thought of judges having to decide on matters of scientific controversy. Dougans added, “Scientists have been – rightly – concerned about the consequences they might face if opponents seek to counter their arguments with a libel claim rather than by engaging in debate and research. The Court of Appeal’s brave decision today gives hope that important research on scientific matters will be protected against libel threats, and will hopefully make people think again before embarking on legal action hoping to shut down debate. It is clear from the judgment that the Court of Appeal is not satisfied with the current state of English libel laws, and recognises the absurdities and injustices that can result from them as they currently stand. Whilst this decision should not obscure the urgent need for libel reform, I am very glad that Simon has received such good news.”

For more information on this case, please visit Sense About Science and The Libel Reform Campaign.