British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

[Mojo]

Ben Goldacre on the Grauniad website: An intrepid, ragged band of bloggers.

[Jack of Kent]

Brilliant! Which part/paragraph of Schedule 1 covers it, Jack?

I am afraid only those of us in the Sixth Form class of the Legal Defences Against the Dark Arts can invoke this countercurse ;-)

[Jack of Kent]

The BCA themselves published the defamatory sentences here!

I know. I am confident they will not sue themselves...

[Blue Wode]

The latest news -

Friday, 31 July 2009

Simon Singh Loses First Attempt At Permission To Appeal

The Court Office today confirmed to me that, in an Order sealed on 30 July 2009, the Court of Appeal has refused Simon Singh's application for permission to appeal (PTA).

Letters were sent to the parties yesterday (but there is a post strike in London).

Simon Singh needed PTA because permission to appeal had been refused at first instance at the preliminary hearing in May.

There are no further details yet, including reasons.

I understand that this refusal may now mean he can make an "oral renewal" before the Court of Appeal.

More information will be provided as it becomes available.
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/...ttempt-at.html

Curiously, the BCA has hidden its statement on the matter three clicks away from its index page in a locked PDF file:

BCA Statement 31st July 2009

BCA v. SIMON SINGH

The BCA notes the decision of Lord Justice Keene sealed in the Court of Appeal on 30 July 2009, to refuse Dr Simon Singh the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal. It looks forward concluding this matter in due course to allow both parties to move forward constructively.

http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/gfx...uly%202009.pdf

[Blue Wode]

Sense About Science responds to the Court of Appeal decision: http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/...te/project/381

[Trinoc]

Comments today from Jack of Kent about the refusal of permission to appeal ...

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/...ns-choice.html

I'm inclined to think the "Heresiarch Manoeuvre" is the course of action to take here. That is, since the BCA has backed itself into the corner of arguing only about the question of "deliberate dishonesty" (which they persuaded the judge to adopt), Simon should agree to apologise for that (which he never intended anyway, whatever the rest of us may think about their honesty) and for that point alone, in exchange for them getting off his back before they do even more damage to the reputation of their profession.

[davidrodway]

Whatever the outcome of the case this whole issue isnt just going to fade away is it? The chirpractors will have aroused the ire of science journalists, the efficacy of chiropractic is more questionable in the public mind. and - it seems to me- the profile of skeptics and especially skeptic bloggers is a lot higher than it was.

[Mojo]

Curiously, the BCA has hidden its statement on the matter three clicks away from its index page in a locked PDF file:

In the basement, in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "beware of the leopard"?

[Blue Wode]

The latest from Simon Singh via his newsletter (not yet available online):

Newsletter 36
Application to Appeal Rejected
3 August, 2009
http://www.simonsingh.net

1. Application to Appeal Rejected

For everyone following my libel case, the bad news is that my application to appeal seems to have been rejected. I say “seems” because I have not yet seen the official ruling as the letter is still in the post. However, there seems to have been a leak and my options are already being discussed by various bloggers. As usual, Jack of Kent has provided a clear summary of the situation:
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/07/simon-singh-loses-first-attempt-at.html
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/08/simons-choice.html

The Court of Appeal’s refusal is obviously disappointing, but I remain in good spirits. I will not be making a decision about my response until I have seen the official letter and the details of the refusal, and I will also need to time to discuss the situation with friends, colleagues, supporters and family. In the meantime, while my particular libel case is ongoing, it continues to raise a whole series of arguably more important issues, particularly the appalling state of English libel laws. I am pleased that the Culture Secretary has agreed to meet with signatories of the Keep Libel Laws out of Science campaign statement to hear how the laws affect science writers. We are also pursuing a meeting at the Ministry of Justice and with front benchers in other departments to lobby for a change in the law.
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/333/

Also, Ben Goldacre’s recent and excellent article in the Guardian (“An intrepid, ragged band of bloggers”) documents various activities that will interest those following my case.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jul/29/simon-singh-science-chiropractic-litigation

[Blue Wode]

The latest from Jack of Kent:

The Length of Simon Singh's Skeleton: The Reasons for Refusal by the Court of Appeal
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/...n-reasons.html

[Trinoc]

I would like to know whether the content of the article is even relevant when it hasn't even been decided whether or not the BCA, as a body rather than an individual, has a reputation which can be defamed in law. Surely this should have been ruled on first, and if the answer was "no" then the rest would be immaterial.

Are we in a position now where the only way to get a decision as to whether the BCA has any business suing for libel at all, is for Simon to go to trial based on Eady's ridiculous interpretation of the article? Is there no way to get a ruling on this point without a lot of extra hassle and expense?

[Jack of Kent]

I would like to know whether the content of the article is even relevant when it hasn't even been decided whether or not the BCA, as a body rather than an individual, has a reputation which can be defamed in law. Surely this should have been ruled on first, and if the answer was "no" then the rest would be immaterial.

Are we in a position now where the only way to get a decision as to whether the BCA has any business suing for libel at all, is for Simon to go to trial based on Eady's ridiculous interpretation of the article? Is there no way to get a ruling on this point without a lot of extra hassle and expense?

No, the "corporate point" is also a preliminary issue. It will have to be dealt with before any full trial. Sorry if my posts have not been clear on that point.

The question of whether the statement held a defamatory meaning, and if so what, was seen as logically prior to whether BCA could sue in respect of that meaning. That is why there was a ruling on meaning first.

I agree with this approach, but Trinoc is right to suggest it could well be the other way round.

[Trinoc]

No, the "corporate point" is also a preliminary issue. It will have to be dealt with before any full trial. Sorry if my posts have not been clear on that point.

The question of whether the statement held a defamatory meaning, and if so what, was seen as logically prior to whether BCA could sue in respect of that meaning. That is why there was a ruling on meaning first.

I agree with this approach, but Trinoc is right to suggest it could well be the other way round.

Would it not have saved a lot of time, bother and expense to settle this legal issue first? It seems we are already most of the way towards one side or other "winning" on the libel point without even deciding on the basic issue of whether libel is even applicable in this case.

If a judge were to decide tomorrow that an organisation like the BCA can not be libelled (as I think was decided a while back regarding local authorities -- correct me if I'm wrong here), presumably someone would have to pay the costs expended so far on the libel issue. In that case I might even feel sympathetic (but not very sympathetic) to the BCA if they had to fork out for this.

Does Simon now have to decide whether to incur further costs simply finding out whether there is a case to answer, before deciding whether or not to throw in the towel on the substantive libel issue? Could he not have insisted on a ruling on this matter first?

[Mulder]

Note to self: must resist pointing out absurdities of legal system! Jack makes his money out of this stuff!

[Jack of Kent]

Note to self: must resist pointing out absurdities of legal system! Jack makes his money out of this stuff!

I can assure you that this is sadly not the case :-(