A rare victory for free speech

HJ

The British Chiropractic Association always were crazy to pursue this - it has got them nothing but bad publicity.

If they disagree with Simon Singh (as they do) they should have explained (and preferably provided evidence) exactly why they disagree and let potential users of their services decide for themselves.

AndyinBrum

WHSmiths in Brun centre have last weeks copy, no sign of Wheelens gurning mug anywhere to be seen. Do you think Unite have got to the delivery people?

AndyinBrum

It's interesting to see which Judge it was that gave the original verdict. A Mr Justice Eady, now why is that name familiar?

Cjamesk

I can`t find a current Spectator in Welwyn either, WH Smiths, Tesco etc.

I was looking forward to a good read too.

Verity

Good for Simon Singh for noting that the king as no clothes. Now who will perform this service for dyslexia, ATD and all the other "syndromes" so beloved by the left.

(Good for the judge, too!)

Victor Southern

A victory for commonsense and free speech, we hope.

Our libel laws are not very eadyfying.

Tom Pride

Just as telling was the seniority of the judges who decided that they should hear the appeal:

The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales Lord Judge, Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger and Lord Justice Sedley.

Regarding the maligned courts - I am not the only one who feels that the legal Establishment has been affected by the PC zeitgeist. There is Mr Justice Eady about who much has been spoken and even of the above three senior judges, Lord Neuberger has upset Lord Carey (ex- Archbishop) and Lord Justice Sedley suggested that everyone should be on the DNA database if the current rules were not to discriminate against ethnic minorities.

Is this a step to even the wider balance?

AndyinBrum

V, no idea what ATD is, did you mean ADD? Autism is recognised as a condition/disease. That's not up for debate. Singh suggested that Chiropractors saying they can cure croup or asthma by massage & skeletal manipulation could be seen as bogus

Cogito Ergosum

There is nothing wrong with the basic tenet of libel law: that if you publish derogatory material claimed as fact, you must be prepared to prove it; and you cannot evade that by claiming that your sources are confidential.

What do seem to be problems are "gagging writs", and the abuse of financial muscle. These are problems our legal minds could sort out if those legal posteriors were kicked hard enough.

Herbert Thornton

Cogito -

You say that the basis tenet of libel law is that if you publish derogatory material claimed as fact, you must be prepared to prove it, and if I read what you say correctly, you are saying that there is nothing wrong with placing the burden of proving that the derogatory material is true on the defendant.

I disagree - indeed I think that in the law of Defamation there are at least several serious problems.

First, the law should not presume that the material has subjected a plaintiff to Hatred Contempt or Ridicule. To place the burden of disproving it on the defendant is unfair and undesirable. At the very least, the question should be decided on the balance of evidence tendered by both the plaintiff and the defendant. Better still, the entire burden of proving material is defamatory should be on the plaintiff.

A second problem is the question of whether the material complained of is worthy of being adjudicated on by a court. The old Roman Law - maxim de minimis non curat lex ought to be applied much more vigorously.

And a third problem is the size of damage awards and awards of costs. The problem is made much worse, as many people have been pointed out, because exceedingly wealthy plaintiffs can use the mere threat of legal action to intimidate others who do not have such deep pockets. To my mind the law would be much improved if monetary damages were not available for proven libel except in cases where the plaintiff proves actual material loss - and if the amounts that can awarded as costs are very strictly limited.

johno

When is Eady J retiring?

Cogito Ergosum

@Herbert Thornton 6.03pm. Thank you for a considered reply.

First, the onus of proof. The burden of proof is on the writer/publisher because the target is regarded as innocent until it is proven otherwise. It would be unjust to expect a target to prove his innocence a hundred times against the assorted
malcontents that do exist out there.

Secondly, the costliness of proceedings. It is a common defence by writers that the words complained of do not bear that
meaning; or that they are comment, not fact. The latter was the issue in this case. It seems to me that it is pot luck what the courts will decide, and absurdly over-expensive with it. Indeed in this case the writer's words appeared to me so incautious as to justify the original procedural decision by Justice Eady (in my opinion). I do believe we need a much cheaper process for deciding whether the writer has a case to answer.

Herbert Thornton

Cogito -

You say - "The burden of proof is on the writer/publisher because the target is regarded as innocent until it is proven otherwise."

While that approach certainly seems to have been the effect of many libel actions, I believe that it is mistaken to think in terms of the plaintiff in any legal proceedings being the "target". In legal proceedings it is the defendant who is the target, not the plaintiff.

In any case, the concepts of "innocence" and "guilt" belong in the criminal law, not in the civil side of the Common Law which (with perhaps still some exceptions) is the branch of the law that deals with Defamation.

Moreover, I believe that whether we are dealing with a civil or a criminal action, both the Common Law principles of fairness, and the principle of free speech itself - ought always to lead to the presumption that the defendant (or the accused as the case may) is innocent.

To presume that a plaintiff in a civil has been wronged and is therefore "innocent" virtually turns the defendant in a civil action into an accused - and to presume that the defendant is guilty turns the criminal law concept on its head.

If the judges fail to put matters right, then Parliament should set them straight.