British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

[Jack of Kent]

The English High Court has ordered that a "preliminary hearing" take place between the British Chiropractic Association and Simon Singh.

This preliminary hearing will probably take place in the next two to three months, and it will determine exactly how this case will be heard at full trial.

The High Court's rulings at this preliminary hearing will have an important impact on the nature and scope of the defence - or defences - which Simon Singh will have to mount.

For further details see: http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/...earing-is.html

I am happy to answer any queries etc here.

Best wishes,

Jack of Kent

[Jack of Kent]

Hi all,

I understand the date for the High Court preliminary hearing of British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh will be on Thursday 7 May 2009.

The hearing may take more than one day.

For background, see:

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/...earing-is.html

and

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/03/bca-v-singh-date-set-for-first-hearing.html

Best wishes,

Jack of Kent

[Blue Wode]

Preliminary hearing is today.

Jack of Kent to be reporting on it via Twitter and his blog:
http://twitter.com/jackofkent
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/

Good luck to Simon Singh and his team.

[Blue Wode]

Very disappointing updates from Jack of Kent...
http://twitter.com/jackofkent

I believe the hearing was before Mr Justice Eady.

[Croydon Bob]

I can't access Twitter. Summary?

[Blue Wode]

I can't access Twitter. Summary?

See here:
http://www.badscience.net/forum/view...php?f=3&t=8946

[Croydon Bob]

Not good.

[John Jackson]

English High Court has ruled Simon Singh has to prove that BCA was deliberately dishonest.

How is it possible to prove that they were deliberately dishonest?

All the BCA have to claim is that even if what they said was false they believed it was true - so where is the evidence going to come from that can prove their intention?

Unless the BCA had some written documentation stating that they knew their claims were false but were going to make them anyway, I can't see how it's possible to prove someone's intention.

The highest court in the land and they're making a ruling where someone has to prove an unfalsifiable claim!

[Mulder]

Sometimes people claim they have evidence for the paranormal that would be good enough for any court of law. They are often right. It just wouldn't be good enough for science.

[John Jackson]

Sometimes people claim they have evidence for the paranormal that would be good enough for any court of law. They are often right. It just wouldn't be good enough for science.

Hopefully Jack will be on later to clarify what this means in law. I'm thinking in terms of tangible evidence but perhaps there's another way in law.

[Edinburgh-Skeptics]

I do worry about the future implications of events such as these. From reading the article I find it difficult (though I'm not a legal mind) to see how Simon Singh is accusing the BCA of intentionally dishonesty.

I think we need to readdress the libel laws. Too many times skeptics are being taken to court for "libel". The new regulations last year relating to consumer protection made the medium community sit up and run around for a while before they came up with their legal disclaimers you now see underneath most adverts for psychic shows such as "The Three Mediums".

Surely these laws can pass over to cover all claims of the paranormal and pseudoscience?

How many skeptics in the public eye haven't been sued? A certain Israeli bender springs to mind.

[Blue Wode]

More details emerging...

The English High Court has ruled that science writer Simon Singh, must show that the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) was deliberately dishonest in promoting chiropractic as a treatment for various children’s ailments.

Mr Justice Eady ruled, with notes apparently written prior to today’s preliminary hearing, that an article by Singh, published in the Guardian should be classified as a ’statement’ and added that by use of the word ‘bogus’ Singh had inferred he believed the BCA had intent to convey dishonest claims to the British public.

In light of this ruling the matter may not go to trial. From Singh’s standing he does not believe the BCA had intent to deceive and therefore cannot prove this.

Mr Justice Eady refused an appeal on the judgement but Index on Censorship has been told that Singh still will not stand down, and intends to pursue his defence by going to the court of appeals. If this is rejected he may then go to Strasbourg and appeal to the European Human Rights Commission.

Costs of £23,000, relating to the preliminary hearing, have been awarded to the BCA.

http://www.indexoncensorship.org/200...famation-case/

[tolman]

It seems pretty incredible that to defend against a libel accusation, someone has to prove something that they didn't even allege in the first place.

Surely, if it comes to the word 'bogus', in common modern usage, 'a bogus claim' is often taken to mean one that is simply unfounded, without necessarily implying an intent to deceive on the part of the person making it.
That's fairly solidly demonstrated by the fact that a bogus claim doesn't seem to become any less bogus if it becomes second or third-hand - it's not the veracity of the person making it that is contested by calling a claim bogus, but the veracity of the claim.

If there is ambiguity about the meaning of a single word, surely the interpretation should err on the side of the person accused of libel, unless they've made it clear from what else they wrote that there was only one possible interpretation?

My interpretation of what I read was that Singh was merely accusing them of the perfectly laudable practice of making claims about their abilities to treat the medical complaints of children which were unsupported by good scientific evidence, (claims which then for some as-yet-unexplained reason disappeared from their own website).

Let's just hope that all the journalists out there who don't like the idea of being sued by people who just want to silence them don't do anything vindictive, like diving all over the next case (or digging up an old case) of someone suffering serious side-effects after chiropractic treatment and giving them maximum coverage.
That would be terrible, especially as it would probably do much more damage to the BCA and its members than Sigh was ever likely to have done, and make their libel case an obvious mistake.

[Blue Wode]

BCA statement just released:

7 MAY 2009

In April 2008 Simon Singh published an article in the Guardian newspaper and on Guardian Online in the course of which he wrote that:

“the British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, 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 asked Dr Singh to retract his allegations because they are factually wrong, defamatory and damaging to the BCA’s reputation. Dr Singh refused to do so.

In July 2008, the BCA issued libel proceedings against Dr Singh. He defended his position and the case has been continuing.

At a hearing on 7 May 2009 in the Royal Courts of Justice before Mr Justice Eady, Dr Singh’s submissions that what he published was not defamatory and that it was fair comment were roundly rejected by the Judge. Mr Justice Eady held:

1. that what Dr Singh had published was defamatory of the BCA in exactly the way the BCA had claimed; and
2. that Dr Singh’s allegations were not comment but were serious defamatory allegations of fact against the BCA.

Dr Singh’s application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused by the Judge. Dr Singh has indicated, however, that he proposes to challenge that decision at the Court of Appeal and he now has three weeks to lodge that challenge.

Mr Justice Eady ordered Dr Singh to pay the BCA’s costs of the hearing within 28 days.
After the hearing BCA President Dr Tony Metcalfe said, “The BCA brought this claim to preserve its integrity and reputation. I’m delighted that the Judge has vindicated the BCA’s position.”

The trial will conclude later this year.

http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/gfx...%2005%2009.pdf

[Blue Wode]

One of the first reports from inside the court room:
http://godknowswhat.wordpress.com/20...n-in-the-neck/