BLOG: Philip Gray on how the Simon Singh case means libel laws have no place in scientific debate

By Philip Gray on Apr 19, 10 09:15 AM

Philip Gray.jpg

THE high profile decision by the Court of Appeal in the libel case concerning the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) and the scientist Simon Singh has been hailed as a victory by libel reform groups.

There has been a long running and at times polemic debate between interest groups on both sides on the scope of our current libel laws. An increasingly vocal number of journalists, free speech groups and media publishers have campaigned for significant reform arguing the law unduly protects high profile celebrities and businesses at the expense of freedom of expression.

However, it is also a widely accepted that individuals and their businesses have a right to protect their reputation from inaccurate and malicious accusations.

Although the Court of Appeal decision did not create any major changes to the law, the Judgment clearly showed the position that the higher courts will adopt when considering the use of libel law in areas of scientific debate. The Court of Appeal ruled that Mr Singh should be allowed to use a specific defence to libel, "fair comment" (also referred to as "honest opinion"), which had been refused by the High Court. However, the Court of Appeal did not actually uphold that defence.

The BCA has decided to withdraw its claim and the Court will not therefore be asked to consider Mr Singh's defence of fair comment any further. However, the decision of the BCA to withdraw its claim is seen by some to imply a loss of confidence in the strength of its case.

Nevertheless, the Judgment will remain very important for what it had to say on the use of libel law in areas of scientific debate. It is well known that the criticism of peer review is at the heart of all scientific research and the Appeal Judges were clear that libel laws had no place in such matters as it was for scientists to debate such issues for themselves.

Whilst the decision gives scientists comfort, it is unlikely to appease campaigners for libel reform who are likely to use the Judgment to pile further pressure on the incoming Government to give greater freedom to writers to publish without fear of law suits.

It is well worth remembering that Mr Singh's case was heard under the existing libel laws which protected him. It is vital that any statutory changes to the law are fully considered and balance the competing interests of both sides. At present there is a real danger that changes may be drafted to appease the interested parties on one side.

* Philip Gray is a lawyer with Kirwans.