British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

In a few minutes' time:
COURT 75

Before LORD JUSTICE LAWS

Wednesday, 14th October, 2009
Not Before 10 o'clock

APPLICATION
A2/2009/1196 British Chiropractic Association -v- Singh. Application of Defendant for permission to appeal.

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/list_coacivil.htm
Click to expand...


Good luck, Simon.

Updates from Jack of Kent on Twitter (you don't have to have an account to view them, just keep refreshing the page):
http://twitter.com/jackofkent

ETA: BBC Newsnight last night carried a small clip of Jack of Kent talking at the Westminster Skeptics in the Pub campaign meeting, followed by a brief interview with Simon Singh. See 37:04 to 39:00 in. I think it's available for the next 7 days only:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ndt7t/Newsnight_13_10_2009/
 
Last edited:
odd that the BCA didn't turn up to oppose. Perhaps they've realized they'd lose in the court of public opinion?
 
Astonishing news. I imagine Singh is pinching himself.

Who gets to hear the appeal? When? So many questions... waiting (im)patiently for Jack's next blog.
 
Last edited:
AndyD said:
Astonishing news. I imagine Singh is pinching himself.

Who gets to hear the appeal? When? So many questions... waiting (im)patiently for Jack's next blog.
Click to expand...
The court of appeal gets to hear it. 3-5 Lord Justices who each give an opinion (often you get only one giving a full opinion and the others simply agree with the wise words of their learned friends). However any dissenter will give their reasons. Case decided on a simple majority.
 
Even better (from twitter 30 minutes ago)
And it will be FULL appeal, Simon allowed to re-argue it was Fair Comment
Click to expand...

If it was fair comment, does it means Simon wins the case with costs?
Will the appeal be in front of another judge? Edit. The answer to this question is in the above post.

If Simon wins, with costs, then huge blow against alternative [to] medicine. But counting chickens before they are hatched.
 
Last edited:
rjh01 said:
Even better (from twitter 30 minutes ago)


If it was fair comment, does it means Simon wins the case with costs?
Will the appeal be in front of another judge? Edit. The answer to this question is in the above post.

If Simon wins, with costs, then huge blow against alternative [to] medicine. But counting chickens before they are hatched.
Click to expand...
Wow. Normally the higher courts only allow you to argue that the decision of the lower courts was wrong in law. The facts found stand.

You can argue that the finding of fact was so flawed that no sensible judge could have found it, but I understand that it is a hard argument to make. Perhaps with Eady it would have been easier!

However it seams as if this hurdle has been removed and the case can be made again.

Costs do get awarded. I am sure that the BCA have reserves to pay any costs. However the members guarantee debts so we don’t need to worry about Simon not getting his money.:D
 
Well, as I have understood it, the appeal is not won yet, but the odds have shifted significantly.

Singh's lawyers must have made a brilliant presentation!
 
Yes, we must keep it in perspective.

He has merely been granted permission to appeal the "ruling on meaning" by the High Court.



Adapted from Jack of Kent's blog
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/05/bca-v-singh-official-ruling.html

The "ruling on meaning" was about the words contained in the following paragraph from Simon Singh's article (which was the only part of his article where he mentions the BCA)

"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 organization is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments."
Click to expand...
The BCA claimed that the paragraph means that

the BCA claims that chiropractic is effective in helping to treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, although it knows that there is absolutely no evidence to support its claims; and by making those claims knowingly promotes bogus treatments.
Click to expand...
The judge's ruling on meaning was as follows:

It is alleged that the claimant promotes the bogus treatments "happily". What that means is not that they do it naively or innocently believing in their efficacy, but rather that they are quite content and, so to speak, with their eyes open to present what are known to be bogus treatments as useful and effective. That is in my judgment the plainest allegation of dishonesty and indeed it accuses them of thoroughly disreputable conduct. I therefore would uphold the claimant's pleaded meanings.
It will have become apparent by now that I also classify the defendant's remarks as factual assertions rather than the mere expression of opinion.
Click to expand...
So Simon is now free to plead his case about what he meant by those words and that they should be regarded as expressions of opinion rather than assertions of fact.

Only after that appeal on meaning does the case actually go to trial.
 
Last edited:
How is it even possible for a judge to be "legally erroneous"? I thought the whole point of judges was that they decided what the law meant...
 
volatile said:
How is it even possible for a judge to be "legally erroneous"? I thought the whole point of judges was that they decided what the law meant...
Click to expand...
An appeals judge must be able to hold that opinion of another judge, or there would not be any reason to appeal.
 
Simon Singh's statement on today's ruling can be read here:
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/409/

I also understand from Twitter that the BCA has been asked if they are releasing an official statement on today's hearing and they say that it will be on the BCA website tomorrow.

BTW, for those outside the UK, BBC Newsnight's 2-minute clip of Jack of Kent talking at the Westminster Skeptics in the Pub campaign meeting last night, followed by a brief interview with Simon Singh, can be viewed on YouTube here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMaqRddP7sI
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom