British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

laca said:
I don't really see a problem with being able to sue in UK if it can be proven that there was a UK reputation at stake. The real problem IMO lies in the assumption of guilt until proven otherwise. That's the main driving force of the UK libel tourism.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure that's really accurate. It's the libelled party who is assumed innocent until proven guilty. In general, this seems fair. You shouldn't be able to say anything you like about me, and leave me in the position of having to prove you wrong. You should be required to prove that your accusations are true.

I don't think the burden of proof is wrong. It's other stuff that seems to be causing this trouble.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
I'm not sure that's really accurate. It's the libelled party who is assumed innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, but the libeled party is not the one on trial, so that would equate to "guilty until proven innocent".

Rolfe said:
In general, this seems fair. You shouldn't be able to say anything you like about me, and leave me in the position of having to prove you wrong. You should be required to prove that your accusations are true.
Click to expand...

Why not? Unless you can prove otherwise, what grounds are there for suing?
 
Justice. It is incumbent on the person making the allegations to be able to prove these allegations are true. Otherwise it would be open season for any and all scurrilous inventions, with no redress unless the libelled party had proof of falsehood. I could think of a lot of completely fabricated allegations I would be unable to prove were false.

It would be a nightmare.

That would indeed be a reversal of the burden of proof. The accuser is in fact the person making the allegations, and the libelled party is in effect trying to defend himself against the libel. The law recognises this.

Rolfe.
 
BillyJoe said:
I must admit I have not seen where they have slandered him, except for one occasion when they rapidly withdrew the comment.
It is that particular occasion that you are referring to, or are there others that would make a case for SS legitimately suing them?
Click to expand...

You nailed it. Thanks.

OTOH, I do see your point.
 
Rolfe said:
I don't think the burden of proof is wrong. It's other stuff that seems to be causing this trouble.
Click to expand...

For example, when the information published is in the public interest.
For SS it was the BCA promoting treatments for which there is no scientific evidence of benefit and potential for harm. For Wilmshurst, it was discussing the lack of benefit from a medical device.

Rolfe said:
The accuser is in fact the person making the allegations, and the libelled party is in effect trying to defend himself against the libel.
Click to expand...

It works both ways.
The other question is: is it libel? Except in a clear cut case of smearing without any evidence of wrongdoing*, it seems to me that that party sueing for libel should need to show that s/he/it was, in fact, being libelled -especially when there is a public interest.
(I include "it" because it seems, in England, even an organisation, can sue for libel.)

*I don't think the SS case falls into that category.
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
As far as I'm aware the material complained of would have to have been available to be read in England or Wales. For example in the Bin Mahfouz v. Ehrenfeld case the English court had jurisdiction because although the book had been physically published in the USA, it was available in the UK via internet retailers, and a chapter had been available on the internet (see paragraphs 14 and 15):
Click to expand...
That makes it a pretty empty gesture for American magazines and newspapers to prevent sales in the UK, when it can be bought or seen over the internet, and so still be liable to a libel case.
 
Rolfe said:
Justice. It is incumbent on the person making the allegations to be able to prove these allegations are true. Otherwise it would be open season for any and all scurrilous inventions, with no redress unless the libelled party had proof of falsehood. I could think of a lot of completely fabricated allegations I would be unable to prove were false.
Click to expand...

You mean allegations that also carry some weight? Of course, I could say you've got only N braincells and you could not prove me wrong but that's a silly statement, one that carries no weight.

Rolfe said:
It would be a nightmare.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying I don't see your point, I just have a hard time imagining something one could say about me that at the same time would hurt my reputation and would be impossible or even hard to prove.

Rolfe said:
That would indeed be a reversal of the burden of proof. The accuser is in fact the person making the allegations, and the libelled party is in effect trying to defend himself against the libel. The law recognises this.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. It cuts both ways, unfortunately.
 
I'm with Rolfe on the burden of proof question. I've never agreed with the focus on the supposed reverse burden. It's difficult to see how a defamation hearing could be run in any way except by the defamer being asked to defend their defamatory statement.

If someone was to say that <name withheld> made perverted sexual advances toward them in private, how would <name withheld> possibly be expected to prove he didn't? It would be akin to proving invisible fairies don't exist. The burden has to be on the one making the claim - the original accuser - to prove their defamation to be true.

Once defamation is established in court then (assuming no successful appeal of the finding) what matters, I think, is what defences are available. Even if the defamed person is as described, publicising that fact still defames them (lowers their image in the eyes of another) but publication of the fact might be defensible for a variety of reasons. Such reasons include things like truth, fair comment, public interest and stating a case in court.

I think that list of defences is where the focus should lie. If the list is comprehensive, libel cases will be reduced due to the lesser likelihood of success (on that note, cost is another important factor).

As I understand it, Singh's problems are:
  1. a seemingly bizarre interpretation of his words
  2. deeming his words a matter of fact, not comment
  3. no allowance for a 'public interest' defence
The fact that it might be difficult, or impossible, for him to prove the decided meaning of his words is largely irrelevant (except in a critique of that decision or in the ensuing appeal process). If he'd stated outright that the BCA, as a collective, are knowingly dishonest, he'd still be expected to prove that claim and it would still be just as difficult, or impossible as it is now with the judge putting that interpretation on his words.

I'm not a lawyer.
 
Last edited:
If you are accused of murder, assault, or theft, it is up to the prosecution to provide evidence of your quilt - in other words, you are innocent untill proven quilty.
If you are accused of libel, it is up to you to prove that you are not quilty - in other words, you are quilty untill proven innocent.

There is clearly a reversal of the onus of proof.
And there is no clear reason why libel should be singled out in this way.
 
AndyD said:
If someone was to say that <name withheld> made perverted sexual advances toward them in private, how would <name withheld> possibly be expected to prove he didn't? It would be akin to proving invisible fairies don't exist. The burden has to be on the one making the claim - the original accuser - to prove their defamation to be true.
Click to expand...

Err if it was true they would have just walked into breach of confidence turf.
 
rjh01 said:
And one thing about libel is that if you win a libel case you do not have to prove how much damage was done. That needs to be changed.
Click to expand...

quite. A few years ago Roman Polanski successfully sued a paper (or book, or something) here. His reputation is so great here that if he arrived, he'd be arrested and deported to the USA.
 
AndyD said:
I'm with Rolfe on the burden of proof question. I've never agreed with the focus on the supposed reverse burden. It's difficult to see how a defamation hearing could be run in any way except by the defamer being asked to defend their defamatory statement.
Click to expand...

I agree to some extent, I just think that the fact that the one being sued is assumed guilty should be mitigated by let's say a requirement for the libeled party to provide some basic reasoning as to why they think the trial is needed. Especially in cases where such reasoning could be easily provided if available, just like in Simon's case. And by reasoning I don't mean "my reputation was hurt", but a sound argument (not necessarily proof) for why the statement in question is wrong.

AndyD said:
If someone was to say that <name withheld> made perverted sexual advances toward them in private, how would <name withheld> possibly be expected to prove he didn't? It would be akin to proving invisible fairies don't exist. The burden has to be on the one making the claim - the original accuser - to prove their defamation to be true.
Click to expand...

In cases like this, I agree. There's just no other way to go at it.
 
BillyJoe said:
If you are accused of murder, assault, or theft, it is up to the prosecution to provide evidence of your quilt - in other words, you are innocent untill proven quilty.
If you are accused of libel, it is up to you to prove that you are not quilty - in other words, you are quilty untill proven innocent.

There is clearly a reversal of the onus of proof.
And there is no clear reason why libel should be singled out in this way.
Click to expand...


Libel is a civil matter, not criminal.
 
Assault and murder are still civil matters as well as criminal. In other words you can sue someone for assault or murder. In which case you need to prove that something happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom