This news awaits formal confirmation, but early reports are that the Court of Appeal judges found that:
- Singh’s assertion that there was “not a jot of evidence” that chiropractic could treat certain conditions was “a statement of opinion, and one backed by reasons”.
- “bogus”, which Justice Eady defined as being an allegation of dishonesty on the part of the British Chiropractic Association, was “more emphatic than assertive” – in other words, merely reinforcing the idea that there was no evidence.
(Source: Heresy Corner and others.)
This is not the completion of the case, but a right to appeal the libel charge laid by the BCA (British Chiropractic Association).
Other reports describe this as in essence the Court of Appeal accepting Singh’s right to have an honest opinion on a subject, i.e. ’the right to rely on the defence of “fair comment” in a libel action being brought against him’, as reported by the BBC.
Mr Singh described the ruling as “brilliant”, but added: “It is extraordinary this action has cost £200,000 to establish the meaning of a few words.”
I’d have to say ’indeed.’ It is a rather expensive way to determine someone is merely stating their opinion.
Please see my comments for additional information as it arises. (You are most welcome to contribute.)
HT: A run of ’hits’ on my previous article on this suggested something was afoot. Good news to hear.
Other articles on Code for Life: