British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

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/uploads/textbox/Singh/Press Statement 07 05 09.pdf
Click to expand...
 
So in what way was this a preliminary hearing? Because if Simon is having to pay costs now, that makes me think that it is all over.
 
I was very concerned about Simon's statement that there is "not a jot of evidence" that chiropractic treatment can "treat" the conditions listed, as it wouldn't surprise me to find that they can produce something a judge would regard as evidence, even if it was only a handful of testimonial letters. I thought he might stumble on that point. What has actually happened is quite a shock.

However, maybe it shouldn't have been. The BVVS had a simmilar experience with the RCVS, who decided that a link from the BVVS web site to Peter Bowditch's anti-homoeopathy articles called "How could any honest person sell this rubbish?" and "It's official - Homeopaths can tell lies" amounted to a statement that veterinary surgeons who practise homoeopathy are guilty of deliberate fraud. This despite the fact that the links were clearly part of an "external links" listing, and the actual articles make no mention of veterinary surgeons or veterinary homoeopathy. The RCVS was very very abrupt on the subject and would listen to no argument, even resorting to threats against the BVVS members when the links weren't immediately removed. This was in marked contrast to the kid gloves with which the BAHVS were treated when they repeatedly procrastinated over an instruction from the RCVS to remove a clearly fallacious claim on their web site (that homoeopathy was an RCVS recognised speciality).

Interestingly, the links are still on the BVVS site - all we did was change the wording displayed from the titles of the two articles to "Another article" and "Yet another article". This was trumpeted by the BAHVS as the RCVS "forcing the BVVS to remove some of the most egregious claims from their web site." Which was a bit of a climb down really, because the original complaint had asked for us to be suspended from the Register - which would have meant us losing our jobs and being unable to earn a living from our profession.

So I really shouldn't be surprised by any of this.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe - I had no idea all that had happened with the BVVS. Am a bit boggled.
 
I’m delighted that the Judge has vindicated the BCA’s position.
Click to expand...


Actually, all the judge has done is to decide upon the exact meaning of the words complained of, as far as any further argument in the case is concerned. No evidence has so far been heard.

ETA: the quote is from the BCA statement.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
Interestingly, the links are still on the BVVS site - all we did was change the wording displayed from the titles of the two articles to "Another article" and "Yet another article". This was trumpeted by the BAHVS as the RCVS "forcing the BVVS to remove some of the most egregious claims from their web site."
Click to expand...


Spin, in other words.
 
I'm really surprised at this, I'll admit that I'm not very well versed in the legal system and this is quite an eye-opener.

As has been said elsewhere, Simon has been put in the position as I see it, of being asked to prove something he doesn't believe and didn't say(or at least didn't intend to say).
I'm interested in what happens next, at the Court of Appeals he can presumably refer to his other writings where the idea of people believing what they are doing despite the evidence should be clear.

I have a few questions if anyone is familiar with the legal system.

Why can the judge refuse the right to appeal? What factors would affect his decision to do so?
This seems to be an extra hurdle for Simon: next he challenges the judges decision to refuse an appeal, then, if successful, he makes the appeal itself. Correct?
If he is unsuccessful in appealing the judges interpretation of his words it seems likely the defence will be dropped as he is not going to argue something he does not believe to be true. If he does this is he free to then discuss his reasons publicly where he could make his decision clear or would he be in contempt of Court or something?

Sorry for all the questions.
 
fingersmith said:
I'm really surprised at this, I'll admit that I'm not very well versed in the legal system and this is quite an eye-opener.

As has been said elsewhere, Simon has been put in the position as I see it, of being asked to prove something he doesn't believe and didn't say(or at least didn't intend to say).
I'm interested in what happens next, at the Court of Appeals he can presumably refer to his other writings where the idea of people believing what they are doing despite the evidence should be clear.

I have a few questions if anyone is familiar with the legal system.

Why can the judge refuse the right to appeal? What factors would affect his decision to do so?
This seems to be an extra hurdle for Simon: next he challenges the judges decision to refuse an appeal, then, if successful, he makes the appeal itself. Correct?
If he is unsuccessful in appealing the judges interpretation of his words it seems likely the defence will be dropped as he is not going to argue something he does not believe to be true. If he does this is he free to then discuss his reasons publicly where he could make his decision clear or would he be in contempt of Court or something?

Sorry for all the questions.
Click to expand...


Jack of Kent has now blogged on yesterday's ruling:
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/05/bca-v-singh-astonishingly-illiberal.html

It might be an idea to put those questions to him in his comments section.
 
Rolfe said:
I was very concerned about Simon's statement that there is "not a jot of evidence" that chiropractic treatment can "treat" the conditions listed, as it wouldn't surprise me to find that they can produce something a judge would regard as evidence, even if it was only a handful of testimonial letters.
Click to expand...

I agree. It was that sentence that worried me. In a rhetorical sense, we know what he meant and would agree, but when "not a jot" is literally equivalent to "absolutely zero" it is hard to defend its literal truth.

But still, it is a huge great clunking legal fist being used to try to intimidate a single person instead of dealing with the issues of evidence and risks versus benefits.
 
Simon Singh interviewed on the always excellent Little Atoms. There's very little new on the case (of course he is still limited on what he can say) but we can all be happy he's still sounding upbeat!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom