UK Libel Law Reform

This is a poignant appeal, but any reply would depend on the structure of libel law being addressed. We're talking GB here, and I don't even know if simple truth is a defense/defence against libel suits in that jurisdiction.

Then you get into issues of what exactly (or even approximately) is the truth, and standards of evidence. I wish the litigant had provided more specifics about the situation.

I'm not a lawyer or barrister, so you can freely ignore these speculations. In human courts, anyway.

By the way, what was the nature of allegedly offending article on chiropractic?

Good point - the link in the quote I gave doesn't give much background. My apologies.

This should fill in some gaps:

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/333/

Well, that sets the stage, doesn't it? Thank you for this background. I see a few luminaries in there, and I will try to follow the controversy. If you have updates, please continue to post them, lest I lose track. The whole topic is interesting, even if likely to be buried in legalese.

(I can see it already: I'll need to get out a British/American dictionary just to translate!)

Singed the petition and sent the above link to my MP.

I hope you signed it rather than starting a fire storm on the web site.

I did too and sent the email to my MP.

When you have countries / states passing laws saying that decisions of your court have no bearing on their citizens (as some US states are proposing to do which I think is important for us citizens) then you know change is needed.

Getting Eady off the bench would also help

Sadly Tornado the simple truth isn't much of a defense.

UK libel laws are becoming a joke in the free world.

Simon Singh made comment in a newspaper article that the Chiropractors Association (BCA) 'promote bogus treatment'. In this he was saying (quite clearly if you read the article) that there is no evidence for the usefulness of Chiropractice in treating colic, ear inflammatiuon, sleep issues - NOT that their well established benefit for skeletal matters was bogus. The BCA chose to sue him personally rather than the newspaper which would be the conventional mode mainly because its easier to scare and bankrupt an ordiary citizen. If Singh loses he has to pay the fees incurred by the BCA. The BCA are using a notoriously expensive firm of libel lawyers known as Carter-F*ck and the cost could be >£1m.

The problem here is that the judge (a notoriusly plaintiff friendly judge) has said that Singhs words mean that he thinks the BCA are a bunch or charlatans who know that their treatment is bogus and are deliberately trying to hoodwink the public whereas its clear the article implies they are wooly minded and making untested claims. Singh has leave to appeal against this assessment - if wins the appeal he can defend himself.

At least in this case the London court is the proper forum as a British cientist wrote in a UK paper about a british organisation

A british heart doctor went to the US Conference and made comments in their papers that were published in the US about the efficacy of a companies heart treatment. This is the sort of thing that needs to come out in any medical treatment. Because the papewrs were reported in the UK the US drug company is suing for libel in the UK instead of the US where the 'libel' occurred for the simple reason that a US court would throw it out as fair comment

Because I am in london and I read your comments if you made a comment that a us corporation regarded as libellous they could sue you in the london high court!

It is vital that we push these changes.

If the public is being defrauded, does it really matter whether the fraudsters are wooly minded and making untested claims or a bunch or charlatans who know that their treatment is bogus?

Signed a few days ago

but forgot to leave a bread crumb

Petition Signed (and gently singed around the edges for effect) and MP emailed.

Email to MP returned undeliverable. Anyone else get this?

Mine went OK.

Don't suppose your member's been caught building duck palaces, or anything like that?

Not that I've heard. He's so clean he squeaks ! He's chairman of the Audit Commission (or was).

I'm onboard with this to. For general info, I quote Simon's monthly newsletter below;

Newsletter 38
Please sign up at www.libelreform.org
15 December, 2009
http://www.simonsingh.net

I am hoping to send out a proper newsletter later this week, but in the meantime I have an urgent and important request.

It has been 18 months since I was sued for libel after publishing my article on chiropractic. I am continuing to fight my case and am prepared to defend my article for another 18 months or more if necessary. The ongoing libel case has been distracting, draining and frustrating, but it has always been heartening to receive so much support, particularly from people who realise that English libel laws need to be reformed in order to allow robust discussion of matters of public interest. Over twenty thousand people signed the statement to Keep Libel Laws out of Science, but now we need you to sign up again and add your name to the new statement at:
www.libelreform.org

The new statement is necessary because the campaign for libel reform is stepping up a gear and will be working on much broader base. Sense About Science has joined forces with Index on Censorship and English PEN and their goal is to reach 100,000 or more signatories in order to help politicians appreciate the level of public support for libel reform. We have already met several leading figures from all three main parties and they have all showed signs of interest. Now, however, we need a final push in order to persuade them to commit to libel reform.

Finally, I would like to make three points.

First, I will stress again - please take the time to reinforce your support for libel reform by signing up at:
www.libelreform.org.

Second, please spread the word by blogging, twittering, Facebooking and emailing in order to encourage friends, family and colleagues to sign up.

Third, for those supporters who live overseas, please also add your name to the petition and encourage others to do the same; unfortunately and embarrassingly, English libel laws impact writers in the rest of the world, but now you can help change those laws by showing your support for libel reform. While I fight in my own libel battle, I hope that you will fight the bigger battle of libel reform.

Thanks for your continued support.
Simon.

My MP email went through ok and she replied this week saying she (Diane Abbott) would sign the Early Day Motion due to concerns I and others had raised - whether she would have done so or not I dont know but at least thats one on board

Keep it going, John. This issue is so important.

Received 27-Jan-10:

***To get in touch with me use Reply-To Address: slane@senseaboutscience.org***

Dear Friends

Can we ask for your help?

You know we joined up with free speech organisations to form the Libel Reform Coalition* in December and that we have been working hard with many of you to highlight the impact of England's libel laws from my own and Peter Wilmshurst's cases to the chilling effect on medical journals and science blogs and other writing. This has begun to focus political and legal minds on the problem but we now have very little time to go before election manifestos are published. We need a commitment in those manifestos. Many of the politicians we've met don't dispute that the libel laws are unfair and against the public interest, but they won't commit to changing them.

There is a new joint petition calling for action at www.libelreform.org, separate to the Keep Libel Laws out of Science petition, and where you can also send a letter urging your MP to support libel law reform.

There were a few teething problems at the launch of this site but progress has been made in fixing these. If you haven't already signed this petition please do it now, and please do sign even if you don't live in the UK. Get your organisation, friends, colleagues and clubs to sign up and email their members; if you haven't written, blogged and Tweeted, could you?

We need your help to get 100,000 signatures before manifestos are published. It will help us to get a strong show of support before members of the coalition meet Jack Straw on Thursday 28^th January.

Best

Simon and Síle

P.S. Do you have any clever suggestions about how to advance the campaign to stop the libel laws being the tools of rich bullies? How do we get 100,000 signatures? Email me or give me a call, Síle

*The Coalition for Libel Reform is made up of the registered charities English PEN, Index on Censorship and Sense About Science, with a wide and growing group of affiliated NGOs, professional and community organizations. See the list of affiliate organizations here: www.libelreform.org/who-supports-us and lots more are considering it. If your organisation should be among them let Síle know at slane@senseaboutscience.org

Síle Lane

Public Liaison

Sense About Science

25 Shaftesbury Avenue

London W1D 7EG

Reg. Charity No. 1101114

Tel: +44 (0)20 7478 4380

www.senseaboutscience.org

Sense About Science is a small charity that equips people to make sense of science and evidence. We depend on donations, large and small, from people who support our work. You can donate, or find out more, at www.senseaboutscience.org/donate

The way all this works in the US is apparently different from the UK way. I am not a legal professional, and I'm probably not up to date on either system. Nonetheless, I think some general philosophy can be discerned.

In the US, a libel suit can be defended simply on the basis that the alleged libel was simply true (Truth = perfect defense). Not only that, sufficiently public figures are also subject to "fair comment" (whatever that may mean), and this limits their opportunities for suing. As a result, the US is probably overboard in one direction.

From what I have understood, the UK is overboard in the other direction. Even if an allegation is true, a plaintiff can sue anyway if the allegation is damaging to his or her reputation. This is bullshit, of course, because in such a case it would be the foul conduct of the plaintiff that led to a true allegation. His/her own damned fault, as it were.

Leon Uris's novel QB VII was based on such a scenario.

In the present case, the BCA has apparently made some bogus claims about the efficacy of chiropractic. And they have been called on it. This no doubt would damage them, but such damage should be considered as self-inflicted on account of their poor scientific procedure, not on outside allegations. But evidently they can cry wolf, and maybe even get away with it, especially if the judge is a hopeless dumbshit.

If this describes your situation reasonably closely, you are in the right to challenge it. Best of luck!

If you haven't already done so, get rid of the dopey wigs along with the dopey laws.

That's just my foreign take. Please feel free to use it to any advantage possible.

Great summary, simonsd !

Dear Friends,

There are two very important events for the Libel Reform Campaign this week.

Tuesday: Simon Singh's case

On Tuesday 23^rd February, Simon Singh's libel case with the British Chiropractic Association is before the Court of Appeal in London. His case will be heard by three of the most powerful legal figures in the UK, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and Lord Justice Sedley. Simon's case is very significant and depending on how it goes, could either strengthen our right to 'fair comment' or hugely undermine it. Look out for coverage of this in The Daily Telegraph, The Times, the Guardian and elsewhere on Tuesday.

Wednesday: MPs report on our libel laws

The Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee will release a report on Wednesday 24^th February that, amongst other issues, will look at the impact of English libel law on free expression. We submitted evidence to the Committee of how our libel laws are unjust and against the public interest and we hope they will make serious and far-reaching proposals for reform.

What can you do?

Come down to the Royal Courts of Justice (map) at 9.45 am on Tuesday to show your support for Simon.

We want MPs to get letters all next week so they understand how important this issue is for people across the UK, and abroad. Please try and persuade one or more friends, family or colleagues to sign the petition: www.libelreform.org/sign

We have received 10,000 new signatures in the last 10 days, but there is still a long way to go, so please keep spreading the word. Simon and others are undergoing a severe strain to defend free speech, and we know that it would be a major morale boost for him if supporters could spare five minutes to persuade friends and family to sign up to libel reform. It would be great if we could add 5,000 more names before Simon leaves the Court of Appeal tomorrow.

Best,

Mike and Síle

The Libel Reform Campaign

www.libelreform.org

The Libel Reform Campaign is a coalition of English PEN, Index on Censorship and Sense About Science.

From Sile Lane:

Dear Friends

Simon Singh's libel case v the BCA was at the Court of Appeal today in front of three of the most senior judges in England and Wales: Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger and Lord Justice Sedley. They heard arguments from both barristers on the meaning of Simon's article and on whether it was fact or comment and their judgment is expected in 6 - 8 weeks. A crowd of supporters greeted Simon as he arrived at the court.

Simon said after the hearing: "First of all, thanks to everyone who came to the Court of Appeal today, and everyone who has been so supportive over the last two years. Without your goodwill, I probably would have caved in a long time ago.

I am delighted the Court of Appeal has decided to reconsider the meaning of my article about chiropractic, and I am particularly glad that three such eminent judges will make the ruling. They grilled both sides on all aspects of the appeal. However I should stress that whatever the outcome there is still a long way to go in this libel case. It has been almost two years since the article was published, and yet we are still at a preliminary stage of identifying the meaning of my article. It could easily take another two years before the case is resolved.

More important than my particular case is the case for libel reform and I know that you share my concern on this matter. My greatest desire is that journalists in future should not have to endure such an arduous and expensive libel process, which has already affected the careers of health journalists such as Ben Goldacre, and which is currently bearing down on the eminent cardiologist Peter Wilmshurst. If Peter loses his case then he will be bankrupted. Please continue to spread the word about libel reform."

Simon's solicitor Robert Dougans of Bryan Cave LLP said: "It was encouraging to see three such senior judges taking such an interest in the appeal, and the BCA's counsel was given a thorough grilling by the court.

What was significant was that the Lord Chief Justice said he was surprised that the BCA had not taken the opportunity offered them back in 2008 to publish their side of the story in the Guardian, rather than insisting Simon apologise and beginning proceedings. He also said it was a waste of both parties' time and effort. I hope that this is borne in mind by MPs when they grapple with the need for libel reform."

You can see photos of Simon and supporters at the court here: www.flickr.com/photos/35803015@N03/sets/72157623492503882/

And read pieces by Professor Raymond Tallis in The Times and Simon Singh in The Daily Telegraph here: http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/about/458

Best

Sile

Sile Lane
Public Liaison
Sense About Science
25 Shaftesbury Avenue
London W1D 7EG

Reg. Charity No. 1101114

Tel: +44 (0)20 7478 4380

www.senseaboutscience.org

Sense About Science is a small charity that equips people to make sense of science and evidence. We depend on donations, large and small, from people who support our work. You can donate, or find out more, at www.senseaboutscience.org/donate

I've started a new thread here.