Campaigners say Simon Singh's case highlights the problems journalists and scientists can face under Britain's draconian libel laws.
Credit: Agençe France-Presse
SYDNEY: Renowned British science writer Simon Singh has won the right to appeal a libel ruling in a case that has become a cause célèbre for freedom of scientific debate.
In a landmark ruling in London overnight, three senior judges - including the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales - found that Singh had the right to rely on the defence of 'fair comment' in his defence of a libel case brought against him by the British Chiropractic Association.
"Serious attack"
The association had called Singh's article in The Guardian newspaper in 2008 a "serious attack" which "tarnished" its reputation.
Last year, London’s High Court, in a preliminary ruling, found that his comments were an "assertion of fact", denying him the defence of fair comment - which permitted him to argue that what he wrote was based on an honestly held opinion expressed without malice.
The fresh ruling now allows him to proceed to trial armed with a stronger defence. Despite this, the case has already cost an estimated £200,000 (A$330,000) in legal fees.
"I am delighted that my meaning has been vindicated by three of the most powerful judges in the country, and I relish the opportunity to defend this meaning in court," Singh told journalists outside the court.
"Shut down debate"
"However, I am still angry that libel is so horrendously expensive ... I'm guilty until I can prove myself innocent, unlike any other area of English law," Singh added. "If you are saying things that are reasonable, fair and in the public interest, we should encourage that rather than try to shut down debate."
Singh's case has become a cause célèbre for journalists and scientists, and prompted a campaign by a number of groups to reform Britain's draconian libel laws, described by evolutionary biologist and author Richard Dawkins as having had a “chilling effect” on public debate about science and medicine.
“[This] brave decision today gives hope that important research on scientific matters will be protected against libel threats, and will hopefully make people think again before embarking on legal action hoping to shut down debate," said Robert Dougans, Singh's lawyer.
"Absurdities and injustices"
"It is clear from the judgment that the Court of Appeal is not satisfied with the current state of English libel laws, and recognises the absurdities and injustices that can result from them as they currently stand.”
the libel laws
This is really horrible, and often in my country this happened to whistle-blowers who were trying to expose illegal actions and sued by large corporations. But to muzzle ideas, and force an individual to pay gigantic legal fees just for writing his own opinion is very scary to me. Science depends on open exchange. I wish Mr. Singh victory.
hmm
Thanks for the information