British science writer wins appeal in libel case over article about chiropractors

Science writer wins appeal in libel case

LONDON — A science writer challenging Britain’s harsh libel laws won a substantial appeals court victory Thursday but still faces further court action in a suit brought against him by the British Chiropractic Association.

The appeals court ruled that Simon Singh, sued for libel by the chiropractors’ group, can make a “fair comment” defense of his statements about chiropractors, contained in The Guardian newspaper in 2008.

It was a successful appeal of an earlier ruling that would have forced Singh to prove in court that his comments about chiropractors were factual to avoid a libel judgment against him. It will be easier for Singh to win the case if he can say they represent his opinions.

The case has been cited by the scientific community as an important test of whether libel charges can be brought against individuals who challenge excessive claims about various products or treatments. In this case, Singh had criticized the chiropractic group’s assertion that its members could treat many childhood illnesses, including colic and asthma.

The writer called Thursday’s court decision “brilliant” but said he has incurred substantial costs and still faces more court action.

“It is extraordinary this action has cost 200,000 pounds ($300,000) to establish the meaning of a few words,” he said.

The appeals court decision was hailed by other scientists as well as advocates of libel law reform who argue that the threat of libel has had a chilling effect on open scientific discussion.

A group of lawmakers has urged Britain’s government to change the country’s plaintiff-friendly libel laws, saying the threat of expensive libel suits is stifling investigative journalism and media freedom.

Britain’s libel laws are considered more pro-claimant than those in many other countries, leading foreigners to bring lawsuits to Britain they would likely lose in their own countries.

Tracey Brown, spokeswoman for the Coalition for Libel Reform, said the group is delighted with the Court of Appeals decision Thursday but wants far-reaching changes to the law.

“We urgently need a public interest defense so that we can all be sure of our rights as publishers, writers, authors and academics,” she said.

The British Chiropractic Association claims that Singh falsely asserted that its members knowingly support bogus treatments of medical problems.

The group posted a statement on its Web site Thursday indicating that it did not want to suppress free speech and simply seeks to clear its name.

Richard Brown, the group’s president, said it may seek to have Thursday’s decision reversed by the Supreme Court.

“This is not the end of the road,” he said.