Singh fair comment appeal successful
Publishers will welcome the Court of Appeal's
decision in relation to the Simon Singh case handed down on 1 April
2010 which indicated strongly that the fair comment defence should
be abandoned in favour of an 'honest opinion' defence. The Court of
Appeal took the view that the case brought by the British
Chiropractic Association ('BCA') in relation to Singh's article in
The Guardian had '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'
treatments.
The BCA had sued Singh for libel in relation
to an article he wrote in the Comment and Debate section of The
Guardian in April 2008 where he said that the BCA claimed that
their members could help treat children with various childhood
problems, 'even though there is not a jot of evidence. This
organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession
and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments'. The BCA said that
wording used by Singh meant that there was no evidence to support
its claims and that therefore they were knowingly promoting bogus
treatments, which was an allegation of dishonesty. Singh
defended on the basis that the words were true (justification) and
also they were fair comment.
The issue of meaning and whether or not the
words were comment, was heard as a preliminary issue. The Judge
upheld the BCA's meaning but also held that the words used by Singh
were fact, not comment, thus denying Singh the chance to defend on
the basis of fair comment and he would have to prove that the words
were true. Singh appealed.
The Court of Appeal disagreed with the Judge.
It held that Singh's words were expressions of opinion,
backed by reasons and therefore, rejected the Judge's finding that
they were statements of fact. Importantly, it stated that in the
context of medical and scientific debate especially, words are
likely to be highly value laden and thus, more readily
characterised as opinion rather than fact. It was therefore
important that the words complained of were considered in
context.
Once Singh's words were properly characterised
as a value judgement, the remaining words from which the defamatory
meaning had been derived, lost their sting. The natural meaning was
that the BCA was promoting what Singh 'contended were bogus
treatments without regard to the want of reliable evidence of their
efficacy'. This was clearly fair comment or what the Court of
Appeal called 'honest opinion'.
It remains to be seen whether the BCA will
appeal, but it is clear that the comments made by the Court of
Appeal, together with other recent libel actions involving the
scientific and medical world, will give yet more force to the
public debate on libel reform.
View the
full judgment >>.
