Tag Archives: libel reform

Telegraph.co.uk: It’s too late for me, but libel laws must change, says Singh

Ahead of his Court of Appeal hearing today, Simon Singh sets out his reasons for why English and Welsh libel law should be reformed.

The first problem is clear. A libel case is so horrendously expensive that most writers, scientists and journalists cannot afford to defend their writing, even if they are convinced it is accurate and important. These costs can easily run to over £1 million and are wholly disproportionate to the damages involved, which might be less than £10,000.

Singh, who is being sued by the British Chiropractic Association for an article he wrote for the Guardian in April 2008, will today challenge a ruling made on the case by Justice Eady – full details at this link.

Speaking about his own case and that of British cardiologist Dr Peter Wilmshurst, who is being sued for libel by an American corporation, Singh writes:

Dr Wilmshurst is not a scaremonger, but a doctor of the highest integrity who won the 2003 HealthWatch award for his courage in challenging misconduct in medical research. However, his reward this time has been a two-year legal battle that could bankrupt him.

When I asked why he bothered to fight on when it would be so much easier to back down and apologise, he replied: “If I fail to speak out then I am not doing my job as a doctor and I am breaking the Hippocratic Oath. I’d rather be sued for libel.”

Full article at this link…

Disclaimer: Journalism.co.uk has pledged its support to the ongoing Libel Reform campaign and petition, which is supporting Singh’s case.

Simon Singh goes to Court of Appeal

Science writer Simon Singh, who is currently being sued by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) is going to court today to challenge Justice Eady’s earlier ruling on the case, made in May 2009.

It boils down to whether Singh’s article published in the Guardian in April 2008 about the effectiveness of chiropractic treatments for children, was comment (as Singh argues) or a statement of fact (as Eady first ruled), in the eyes of the law.

The Court of Appeal hearing – scheduled for 10:30am – “is a rare opportunity to clarify the right to ‘fair comment’, one of the few defences available in a libel action”, says the Libel Reform campaign, backed by the Sense About Science organisation, in a statement.

It said it will be “one of the most significant trials for free speech and science this year”, as Singh’s case goes before the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and Lord Justice Sedley.

Disclaimer: Journalism.co.uk has pledged its support to the ongoing Libel Reform campaign and petition.

Comedy stars stage benefit gig for libel reform

Comedians, scientists and politicians will joins forces to stage a West End show aimed at speaking out against UK libel laws.

The Big Libel Gig will take place at London’s Palace Theatre on Sunday, 14 March 2010.

Hosting the gig will be comedian Robin Ince, co-creator of the event alongside science writer Simon Singh. As previously reported on Journalism.co.uk, Singh is currently facing libel charges brought by the British Chiropractic Association.

Singh has been granted leave to appeal Mr Justice Eady’s intial ruling, and the appeal will take place on 22 February.

In a press release about the event, Singh says: “Peter Wilmshurst, Ben Goldacre and I will talk about being sued for libel. Peter is being sued for raising concerns about a heart device. He faces bankruptcy by coming up against our draconian libel laws. We are all put at risk if doctors and scientists are scared to speak out because of English libel laws.”

The gig will conclude Libel Reform Week, which according to its organisers the Coalition for Libel Reform aims to “urge political parties to commit to major reforms before the election”.

The coalition – which will receive all funds raised by the Big Libel Gig – was established by the charities Index on Censorship, English PEN and Sense About Science.

The confirmed line-up includes Dara Ó Briain, Tim Minchin, Marcus Brigstocke, Robin Ince, Ed Byrne, Shappi Khorsandi and Professor Brian Cox.

Tickets are now on sale on Seetickets.com.

Mark Lewis: Libel law’s ‘killing effect’

Mark Lewis, the solicitor-advocate in Manchester who currently represents Dr Peter Wilmshurst (see background here),  has written an excellent piece on the need for libel reform, in the Solicitors’ Journal. “When the law is so bad that it leaves you speechless it needs changing,” he writes.

The law of defamation is expensive to pursue and even dearer to defend. The stress, time and financial cost of a libel case stop people speaking out. Libel law is simple currently: a rich claimant trumps a poor defendant. Newspapers worry about the ‘chilling effect’ of libel – investigative journalism is hampered as a result of lawyers for the press advising their clients to err on the side of caution.

At least it’s not a matter of life or death. Well, it is now. The chilling effect turned into the ‘killing effect’ when claimants realised that a well-drafted claim form is likely to have the effect of silencing an individual who attacks medical products or procedures.

Full story at this link…

RCFP: ‘Responsible journalism’ defence established in Canadian libel law

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) reports on two rulings at the end of 2009 that will help journalists’ freedom of speech in Canada.

[Two] rulings established a “responsible journalism” defence that protects reporters sued for libel whose stories were in the public interest […]

In the first case, The Toronto Star was saved from paying $1 million in punitive damages – one of the largest awards in Canadian libel history – over a story detailing controversial plans for a new golf course. In the other case, a $135,000 verdict against the Ottawa Citizen was overturned over a story about a former police officer who misrepresented himself at Ground Zero, The Globe and Mail reported.

Advocates say the two rulings effectively revamp Canadian libel law to protect reporters – and extends the same protection to internet journalists.

Full story at this link…