Author relies on fair comment defence
The Court of Appeal has found unanimously in favour of science writer Simon Singh in a high-profile libel ruling on the right to plead “fair comment”.
In British Chiropractic Association v Dr Singh [2010] EWCA Civ 350, the court held that Singh’s comments were expressions of opinion not assertions of fact.
Therefore, Singh did not need to prove that the comments were factually true in order to win, but could rely on the defence of “fair comment”.
Delivering the lead judgment, Lord Judge evoked George Orwell’s dystopian novel, 1984, to illustrate the “chilling effect” of the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) litigation.
He stated that, “the material words, however one represents or paraphrases their meaning, are in our judgment expressions of opinion.
“The opinion may be mistaken, but to allow the party which has been denounced on the basis of it to compel its author to prove in court what he has asserted by way of argument is to invite the court to become an Orwellian ministry of truth.”
Lord Judge noted that the BCA chose to sue Singh rather than sue The Guardian newspaper or take up its offer to refute the criticisms in a separate article.
“It is now nearly two years since the publication of the offending article,” he said.
“It seems unlikely that anyone would dare repeat the opinions expressed by Dr Singh for fear of a writ. Accordingly this litigation has almost certainly had a chilling effect on public debate which might otherwise have assisted potential patients to make informed choices about the possible use of chiropractic... the unhappy impression has been created that this is an endeavour by the BCA to silence one of its critics.”
He concluded that “fair comment” might be more accurately described as “honest opinion”, as has been recognised by a number of common law countries.
Robert Dougans, associate, Bryan Cave, who acted for Singh, says: “This is a case that should never have been brought since The Guardian was willing to publish an article by the BCA setting out its view.
“It looks like [the BCA] were trying to shut down debate rather than engage in it. The court has taken a sensible line on ‘fair comment’ and this is a very pro-science decision.”
