British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

Last edited:
BCA's statement

http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/gfx/uploads/textbox/Singh/BCA statement 1st April 2010.pdf

1st April 2010
Statement from the British Chiropractic Association regarding the BCA vs Simon Singh

Commenting on the Court of Appeal ruling allowing the Appeal by Simon Singh, Richard Brown, President of the British Chiropractic Association (BCA), said: “The case against Dr Singh has always been simply to set the record straight and correct what the BCA considered were libellous comments by Simon Singh in the
Guardian. Originally we asked Dr. Singh for a retraction and an apology and he declined. The Guardian subsequently offered a right of reply but this fell short of our expectations, not least of which because the original libel would have remained uncorrected. Having reached stalemate and feeling our reputation had been tarnished we sought legal advice which unambiguously indicated that in order to get an appropriate apology and retraction, a writ needed to be served.

The same advice was that this was best achieved by directing the action against the author rather than the newspaper. The BCA has followed its legal advice throughout this case. The motivation for this action was always to clear our good name, particularly in respect of the implication that we acted dishonestly. It never was, and it is still not our intention, to curb freedom of speech, whether in the field of scientific research or elsewhere, although sadly we recognise that this is how it has been portrayed by Dr. Singh and his supporters”.

The BCA brought the case because in his article Dr Singh made a serious attack on the reputation of the BCA, which stated in print and on-line, that the Association "....happily promotes bogus treatments”. In May 2009 Mr Justice Eady, one of the country’s leading libel judges, agreed with the BCA’s interpretation of the article. He ruled that Dr Singh had made the “plainest allegation of dishonesty”. Today the Court of Appeal ruled, by virtue of their interpretation, that the words published were “comments” or “opinions” and not allegations of fact.

The BCA is considering its position in the light of the ruling. Richard Brown concluded “We are of course disappointed to lose the appeal, but this is not the end of the road and we are considering whether to seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and subsequently proceed to trial. Our original argument remains that our reputation has been damaged. To reiterate, the BCA brought this claim only to uphold its good
name and protect its reputation, honesty and integrity”.
Click to expand...
 
I don't buy the BCA's claim tnat it was the lawyers fault and they only followed legal advice. In my experiene lawyers don't offer advice. Rather they offer options and chances of success. It was for the BCA to decide how to proceed. They choose to sue Simon not the Grauniad. If as suggested their lawyers advised them to sue they would have a case for piss poor advice. The reputation of the BCA has been damaged far more by this action than the original artile.
 
Lothian said:
I don't buy the BCA's claim tnat it was the lawyers fault and they only followed legal advice. In my experiene lawyers don't offer advice. Rather they offer options and chances of success. It was for the BCA to decide how to proceed. They choose to sue Simon not the Grauniad. If as suggested their lawyers advised them to sue they would have a case for piss poor advice. The reputation of the BCA has been damaged far more by this action than the original artile.
Click to expand...

I think that part of their statement is quite true - what they forget to mention of course is that it was entirely their decision as to whether they should follow the legal advice.
 
 
Jack of Kent says that para. 34 of the judgment is significant:
34. We would respecfully adopt what Judge Easterbrook, now Chief Judge of the US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, said in a libel action over a scientific controversy. Underwager v Salter 22 Fed 3d 730 (1994):

“Plaintiffs cannot, by simply filing suit and crying “character assassination!”, silence those who hold divergent views, no matter how adverse those views may be to plaintiffs’ interests. Scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation. …More papers, more discussion, better data and more satisfactory models – not larger awards of damages – mark the path towards superior understanding of the world around us”
Click to expand...
 
Can someone, for the legally inept amonst us :o, spell it out what this ruling actually means?

Is Singh off the hook, or are further proceedings likely / still possible? Who picks up the legal bills etc.

Mind the BCA couldn't have worked this scenario anymore to their disadvantage if they had tried.
 
 
Darat said:
I think that part of their statement is quite true - what they forget to mention of course is that it was entirely their decision as to whether they should follow the legal advice.
Click to expand...

Quite, the legal advice may well have been 'you could sue, or you could publish a reply article, or you could ignore it'. Whichever the BCS chose, they'd still be following the advice of their lawyers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom