Legal Research

Chiropractic and British Libel

By Simon Fodden

Science writer Simon Singh included this passage in piece he wrote for the Guardian:

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 Association sued Singh for libel. Evidently in British libel law, a judge must rule as to whether the statement in question was a “comment” or a “statement of fact.” If it is ruled the former, the defendant then must show it was a “fair comment”; if the latter, then the defendant must “justify” the fact. Last Thursday, Mr. Justice Eady ruled that the objected-to phrase was a “statement of fact,” and he went on to rule that “bogus” meant Singh implied the BCA were being consciously dishonest. This means that Singh would have to prove at trial that the BCA were in fact being consciously dishonest — something he’s unlikely to be able to do.

This decision — this action, in fact — has stirred a good deal of comment in the Brit blogosphere, perhaps the most penetrating being from Jack of Kent, who was present at the argument and oral decision, and who has a lot to say about it all. Worth reading.

Full post as published by Slaw.ca on May 12, 2009 (boomark / email).