The libel case brought by the British Chiropractic Association against science writer Simon Singh arrived in court yesterday.

Singh is being sued by the association over an article he wrote for the Guardian which was less than complimentary about the BCA. (See Chiropractors get litigious, again – August 19, 2008, also the ‘For Simon Singh and Free Speech’ Facebook timeline.)

Yesterday, the judge in the case ruled that Singh’s assertion that the BCA “promotes bogus treatments” was a statement of fact, and not comment (Index on Censorship).

This has important implications in British libel law, as the Jack of Kent blog explains:

If it is ruled that the passage was “comment” then the defendant has to prove that it was a “fair comment”. If the passage was a statement of fact, then the defendant has “justify” the fact.

According to the Jack of Kent blog, judge Justice Eady also decided that “by the mere use of the word “bogus” Simon Singh was stating that, as a matter of fact, the BCA were being consciously dishonest” in promoting chiropractic medicine for children’s ailments (emphasis in original).

As the God Knows What blogs points out, “The effect of this, is that Simon Singh has only two choices 1) to appeal the decision and hope that, if the appeal is accepted, the next judge is more reasonable or 2) to concede defeat. Under the meaning that the judge decided on, to win the case he would have to effectively demonstrate that all the BCA’s members do not believe in chiropractic medicine and are intentionally defrauding the public.”

“The BCA brought this claim to preserve its integrity and reputation. I’m delighted that the Judge has vindicated the BCA’s position,” says BCA president Tony Metcalfe.