British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

What you have said above is OK. However if I say your product cannot not work as advertised and you sue me for libel then it may be hard to prove that it cannot work. That is part of the problem that Simon must prove that Chiropractic does not work and it is happily promoted.

In other words Simon must prove the -ve or lose the case.
 
AndyD said:
In a criminal case, The Crown (prosecution) claims person B killed someone. The Crown has to prove its case and person B is presumed innocent unless it can do so.
Click to expand...


The claimant in a libel case has to establish that the statement complained of has been published and is defamatory, although they only have to satisfy the civil "balance of probabilities" standard of proof rather than the criminal "beyond reasonable doubt" one. If they can provide this evidence then the defendant has to demonstrate that one of the available defences applies.

The same sort of thing applies in criminal cases - even if the prosecution can prove that the accused did the deed, there may be defences available. It is then up to the defence to produce evidence that one of these applies.

I seem to recall JoK saying "guilty" is not a finding in libel cases. I could recall wrongly though.
Click to expand...


"Guilty" is not a possible finding in a civil case.
 
The same sort of thing applies in criminal cases - even if the prosecution can prove that the accused did the deed, there may be defences available. It is then up to the defence to produce evidence that one of these applies.
Click to expand...


It's also worth thinking about just how innocent someone is presumed to be once they're on trial. If the Crown mounts a case against them and they just stand there and offer no defence whatsoever, their chances of remaining innocent would seem pretty dire, I'd think. They are only as innocent as their defence lawyer, and jury, allow them to be.

What you have said above is OK. However if I say your product cannot not work as advertised and you sue me for libel then it may be hard to prove that it cannot work. That is part of the problem that Simon must prove that Chiropractic does not work and it is happily promoted.
Click to expand...

Touché. Interesting conundrum isn't it?
 
zeno2712 said:
Blogging: Zeno's Blog » What's Polish for 'chiropractor'?

More about the GCC's leaflets, some comments on Bronfort et al. and who actually regulates what chiros can claim.
Click to expand...


Now that the GCC might start grasping the EBM nettle following the findings of the (controversial) Bronfort review, it’s interesting to note in an ex-chiropractor’s blog today that some chiropractors have been looking at the possibility of taking legal action against the GCC:
“I am a chiropractor who has been very supportive of the GCC in the past. However, the way they are handling these complaints makes me reconsider. It is now possible that chiropractors will find themselves found guilty of professional misconduct for following the example set by the GCC in their own leaflets and websites. This raises the question are the GCC fit for purpose?

Interstingly if chiropractors suffer a loss of reputation or financial loss for following the GCCs example/advice it may open up the possibility of legal action or even a class action against the GCC.”

See comments 5 and 6 here:
http://chiropracticlive.com/how-coa...l-going-to-deal-with-zeno-rsquo-s-complaints/
Click to expand...


Bearing in mind that the Bronfort review carried out no new trials, I wonder if patients could demand to be refunded up nine years retrospectively (since the date that statutory regulation came into force) for having been administered bogus treatments?
 
I wonder how an individual chiropractor can/will handle the new "guidance" when dealing with an existing patient who's being "treated" for one of the "outlawed" problems?

"I'm sorry sir but there's no evidence that chiropractic can do anything for that problem you've been paying me to treat for for the past year."
 
rjh01 said:
What you have said above is OK. However if I say your product cannot not work as advertised and you sue me for libel then it may be hard to prove that it cannot work. That is part of the problem that Simon must prove that Chiropractic does not work and it is happily promoted.

In other words Simon must prove the -ve or lose the case.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. He has to show that there is `not a jot' of evidence, which isn't the same thing. If it goes to full trial, I predict a lot of arcane legal argument on what a `jot' is.
 
For those within striking distance of London, and with time on their hands, don't forget the mass lobby in Parliament on Tuesday. It's the last chance before the election of getting the libel reform message across to MPs.
 
Asolepius said:
I don't think so. He has to show that there is `not a jot' of evidence, which isn't the same thing. If it goes to full trial, I predict a lot of arcane legal argument on what a `jot' is.
Click to expand...


To quote from the transcript on Jack of Kent's blog:
LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: Is that what is seriously in prospect if this goes to trial?

MS PAGE QC: Yes.

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: The court turns itself into a forum for epidemiological expertise and pronounces on it?

MS PAGE QC: Yes.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
Shome mishtake, shurely? Ed.
Click to expand...


See also:
LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: You see underlying all this is another area of possibly and possibly not verifiable fact, which is whether homeopathy works for such diseases as colic and asthma.

MS ROGERS QC: Chiropractic rather than homeopathy.

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: Sorry. Perhaps it was in this morning's papers. Whether chiropractic works for infantile asthma or colic.
Click to expand...


This was the day after publication of the House of Commons report into the evidence for homoeopathy.
 
In general terms, one would expect the judgment to come out this week. This is because the courts usually try to get out judgments before vacations.

There really was not a great deal for the Court of Appeal to consider: two skeleton arguments and some caselaw, much of which the judges will already be familiar with.

If judgment is not out before Easter, then who knows when it will be out...
 
Musical interlude

'The Simon Singh Song' by Ariane Sherine, recorded backstage at the Big Libel Gig:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5tZKCcLLWs

I don't believe all the stuff in the bible
But at least god won't come down and sue me for libel
I don't believe if I called god bogus
He'd get cross and send down a big plague of locusts
It's just a shame we can't say
The same about the BCA

So I'm going to sing about Simon Singh
But he's not the pope so I won't kiss his ring
He fights for what's right although his hair's wrong
We'll spend tonight in a Simon Singh song

Doodoodoo...Doodoodoo.....

I don't believe that cracking my spine
Can uncross my eyes or make my ears fine
I don't believe chiropractic cures colic
It all sounds to me like a big load of bollox
So if you have pain in your back
Go see a GP not a quack

I'm going to sing about Simon Singh
If we are skeptics then he is the king
He keeps up the fight though the battle is long
We'll spend tonight in a Simon Singh song

Doodoodoo...Doodoodoo.....

I don't know much about English law
But silence thinks science is not what it's for
So let's fight for Simon I think we can trust his
Verdict above that of carp British justice
So if you think speech should be free
Come sing along now with me

We're going to sing about Simon Singh
He's not the pope so we won't kiss his ring
He fights for what's right although his hair's wrong
We'll spend tonight in a Simon Singh song

We're going to sing about Simon Singh
If we are skeptics then he is the king
He keeps up the fight though the battle is long
We'll spend tonight in a Simon Singh song
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom