Simon Singh Update

Some good news on the Simon Singh libel case against the British Chiropractic Association (BCA). The courts have given him leave to appeal his case, which he formerly 'lost' when Judge Eady construed Singh's use of the word 'bogus' (as in chiropractic deals in 'bogus treatments') as libelous against the BCA. Upon appeal, Lord Justice Laws has found Mr. Justice Eady's interpretation favored rights of reputation over rights of free expression. Left unsaid was that the BCA's highly public case against Singh has done more to tarnish its reputation than Singh could ever have done by himself (i.e. singhle handedly).

Singh isn't out of the woods yet. He had been granted permission to appeal the case. He still has to win the appeal.
Mr Justice Laws described Eady’s judgement, centred on Singh’s use of the word “bogus” in an article published by the Guardian newspaper, as “legally erroneous”.

Laws also pointed out that Eady’s judgement had conflated two issues — the meaning of the phrases complained of, and the issue of whether the article was presented as fact or fair comment.
Laws said there was “no question” of the “good faith” of Singh in writing the article, as the matter was “clearly in the public interest” (link).
Seemingly, Singh's strategy must now be to convince the appeals court of his 'good faith' and that 'bogus' was not meant to deride, but to describe (again in good faith) that chiropractic treatments do not rise to the standards of effective medical treatment.

As for me, I'll take a Lord Justice Laws over a Mr. Justice Eady any day of the week.

No comments: