Supporters of science writer Simon Singh were jubilant yesterday after battle was joined again in his libel action with the British Chiropractic Association (BCA).
The Court of Appeal heard arguments on Tuesday in the case brought by the BCA against Singh over an article he wrote for the Guardian in 2008. The court is hearing Singh’s appeal against a court ruling in 2009 on the meaning of the article, which held that Singh was asserting that the BCA was deliberately using unfounded claims.
Although Singh stressed there is a long way to go yet his supporters believe that the BCA came off worst in the hearing (see, for example, the Jack of Kent blog). They hope that the forthcoming ruling may establish that he – and other writers – can use a ‘fair comment’ defence in cases like these.
A wider campaign to reform British libel laws has also sprung up around this case, and Nature has given its backing to this along with other scientific publishers.
More support came today from the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which produced its report on Press standards, privacy and libel. This noted, “We look forward, clearly, to the outcome of the important Simon Singh case. Even from the limited evidence we have received, we believe that the fears of the medical and science community are well-founded, particularly in the internet age and with the growth of ‘libel tourism’. We urge the Government, therefore, to take account of these concerns in a review of the country’s libel laws, in particular the issue of fair comment in academic peer-reviewed publications.”
After what was reportedly a lively session in London’s Royal Courts of Justice, Robert Dougans, Singh’s solicitor from 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.”
(Statement via Sense About Science.)
Singh’s side also asked the court to take the attitude of a US Court of Appeals in the case of Underwager v Salter, which ruled that, “Scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation.”
“We were excited to see that the Judges were interested in this approach and we just have to hope that they are able to take this on board in their decision,” said Dougans.
Nature is seeking comment from the BCA on yesterday’s hearing.
Image: pro-Singh protestors in front of the Royal Courts of Justice / photo by englishpen via Flickr under Creative Commons.