Breaking news: Singh wins appeal in chiropractic case
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.
The Independent and Simon Singh’s former newspaper, The Guardian, report:
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.
Addendum
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:
Simon Singh, leaving job to deal with chiropractic legal case
Chiropractic libel suit snagged by its own ruling body?
Homeopathy check-up: Not in the health system, disclaimers on labels
Homeopathic remedies in NZ pharmacies
8 Responses to “Breaking news: Singh wins appeal in chiropractic case”
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Paul Sampson, Grant Jacobs. Grant Jacobs said: Breaking news: Singh wins appeal in chiropractic case http://bit.ly/9sSXOv […]
Some commentary on what a ruling in Singh’s favour might mean was written on the blog of legal writer ‘Jack of Kent’ yesterday:
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2010/03/simons-judgment-day.html
Allen Green (aka ‘Jack of Kent’) has tweeted the news, also remarking that he did not see the BCA in court and re-tweeting a link (from @incurablehippie) to a PDF file of the BCA’s statement:
http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/gfx/uploads/textbox/Singh/BCA%20statement%201st%20April%202010.pdf
You can form your own opinion.
An audio from outside the courtroom after judgement is available:
http://ipadio.com/phlogs/JamesOMalley/2010/04/01/James-OMalley-From-your-own-correspondent-209th-phonecas
“Finally,†the formal statement from the Court of Appeal (HT: @jackofkent) :
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/350.html
In an earlier tweet, Allen Green (@jackofkent) drew attention to paragraph 34 of this judgement statement, which reads:
I will probably sign off here for the time being. Comments and thoughts welcome.
I will say that the Court of Appeal’s judgement statement, read after reading the BCA’s statement, echoes much of my initial reactions about the BCA’s statement.
Hmm, blockquotes don’t work in comments. SIgh.
Paragraphs “34. […]†and “”[Plaintiffs] cannot […]†taken together are a quote from the Court of Appeal statement.
One more link before I go (apologies to Bob Dylan; One More Cup of Coffee, etc.), a brief on-the-scene first-hand account by scientist Stephen Curry and commentary on the judgement statement:
http://blogs.nature.com/scurry/2010/04/01/this-appeal-must-be-allowed
I would comment there, but the Nature Network login is not being nice to me. (It was working… Perhaps the teething problems with their new blogging system are continuing.)
[…] Breaking news: Singh wins appeal in chiropractic case […]