Simon Singh vs quack chiropractors: important legal case

[two sheds]

I find the judge's ruling strange tbh, if the above quote is accurate:

Because Singh used the word "bogus", the judge said he had to prove that chiropractors knew they were worthless but "dishonestly presented them to a trusting and, in some respects perhaps, vulnerable public"

Surely, even if chiropractors believe what they are doing, the treatments could still be bogus - i.e. not genuine. Without scientific proof for what they do they could I would have thought still 'happily' (which as I recall was also part of the original statement) promote them without being actually dishonest - just naive or non-scientific.

A simple demonstration that there was no scientific evidence for what they do would seem to be enough to back up Singh's statement.

 

[Signal 11]

McTimoney Chiropractors told to take down their web sites

This letter has been issued from the McTimoney Association to all its members…

Because of what we consider to be a witch hunt against chiropractors, we are now issuing the following advice:

The target of the campaigners is now any claims for treatment that cannot be substantiated with chiropractic research. The safest thing for everyone to do is as follows.

• If you have a website, take it down NOW.

When you have done that, please let us know preferably by email or by phone. This will save our valuable time chasing you to see whether it has been done.

• REMOVE all the blue MCA patient information leaflets, or any patient information leaflets of your own that state you treat whiplash, colic or other childhood problems in your clinic or at any other site where they might be displayed with your contact details on them. DO NOT USE them until further notice. The MCA are working on an interim replacement leaflet which will be sent to you shortly.

http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/06/chiropractors-told-to-take-down-their.html

 

[teuchter]

Interesting.

"Witch hunt".

Those unreasonable campaigners, targeting unsubstantiated claims! What ever next.

 

[two sheds]

Interesting - wouldn't have thought that does the case much good. It seems to demonstrate that they recognise that they have been making unsubstantiated claims. They don't sound too happy about it now, so presumably they were doing it 'happily' before .

 

[kyser_soze]

Surely, even if chiropractors believe what they are doing, the treatments could still be bogus - i.e. not genuine. Without scientific proof for what they do they could I would have thought still 'happily' (which as I recall was also part of the original statement) promote them without being actually dishonest - just naive or non-scientific.

The point being that Singh supposedly implied that the practitioners were consciously aware that they are selling snake oil, and therefore gulling pts into paying for treatment. The scientific validity or otherwise of the treatments is irrelevant here - the supposed libel is that he's saying chiropractors are dishonest in intent peddling something they know doesn't work.

 

[berniedicters]

My ex-wife saw a chiropractor for months for back pain, to no end. A while later, she went to see another one, via a recommendation from a friend of mine, who was shocked at how many treatments she'd had, how much it had cost, and the potential harm that he had done (something about succeeding in over-straightening the spine).

She started to pursue the matter through the BCA, but they were so obstructive and byzantine that she lost heart - she was dealing with major mental health hassles, not entirely unrelated to her back problems, at the time - and eventually they told her it had been too long since the treatments were done.

I do not have a very high opinion of the BCA as a professional body. I am not in the slightest surprised that they would use libel laws to gag criticism of their profession rather than come out and justify themselves: it fits perfectly with the experiences I have had of them.

I don't believe all chiropractors are charlatans, though I am suspicious of many of the claims made for chiropractic. However, I think that if Singh's views on chiropractic are based in any way on contact with the BCA, and if his experiences of the BCA's modus operandi was anything like mine and my ex-wife's, then it is no surprise at all that he came to the conclusion that they were, shall we say, not operating to the highest ethical standards.

 

[two sheds]

The point being that Singh supposedly implied that the practitioners were consciously aware that they are selling snake oil, and therefore gulling pts into paying for treatment. The scientific validity or otherwise of the treatments is irrelevant here - the supposed libel is that he's saying chiropractors are dishonest in intent peddling something they know doesn't work.

Yep, that's what Eady ruled. There was good coverage, as ever, in Private Eye this issue.

 

[teuchter]

The point being that Singh supposedly implied that the practitioners were consciously aware that they are selling snake oil, and therefore gulling pts into paying for treatment. The scientific validity or otherwise of the treatments is irrelevant here - the supposed libel is that he's saying chiropractors are dishonest in intent peddling something they know doesn't work.

As I think I said earlier in the thread - even if one agreed that yes, Singh was implying that they knowingly sell snake oil (and I don't agree with that interpretation of his wording) - well, the fact that they are a "professional body" means that it should pretty much be assumed that any recommendations they make have been checked out. If they were unknowingly selling snake oil - then if they are not dishonest they are certainly negligent.

Different standards should be expected of people depending what position they are in.

I guess you could say this is irrelevant to the particular technicality of the libel claim that is in question - I'm not entirely sure it is, though.



In other words:

They describe themselves as a professional body - fact
The claims they made were unsubstantiated - fact
A professional body would only make substantiated claims - reasonable assumption
From those three premises you can conclude that it was reasonable of Singh to assume they were knowingly selling snake oil. It wasn't an unreasonable accusation to make, therefore not libellous.

 

[kyser_soze]

I guess you could say this is irrelevant to the particular technicality of the libel claim that is in question - I'm not entirely sure it is, though.

Which is why it's (yet another) bad libel judgement from Eady. The man's an ass, quite frankly...

 

[laptop]

"Are you showing contempt for this court, Miss Rogers?"

"I'm trying not to..."

 

[two sheds]

Which is why it's (yet another) bad libel judgement from Eady. The man's an ass, quite frankly...

I'd be tempted to say he's a 'bogus' judge but ....

 

[aylee]

Apparently because it's "feast or famine". A few chambers make a good living from it, but there's not as much "bread and butter" work as there is in criminal, corporate or family law.

This is partly true, but it's also because defamation is such a highly technical and specialised area. It's not something a general common law hack like me would dabble in.

 

[aylee]

I hadn't been aware, before hearing about this story, that English libel law is apparently quite different from the equivalent in other European countries. So quite a few legal types are interested to see what happens when this gets to the European Court of Human Rights.

It's highly unlikely that the ECHR will be of any help to Singh and people in his position, because it has ruled many times in the past that it is for the state to determine the balance between free speech and protection of reputation, and that the present state of English libel law doesn't fall outside the state's "margin of appreciation".

I'm no expert, but English libel law is considered one of the worst and there are plenty of cases of people indulging in libel-tourism and having their cases brought here because they know in their home country they wouldn't get anywhere. Private Eye is constantly on about it and the way that it is impacting good journalism.

Well, Private Eye has a vested interest, of course. But it's right to say that the law of defamation is a stain on our common law, with its ridiculously complex rules relating to statements of case and substantive defences. It is also fair to say that the courts have gone some way, by inventing the Reynolds defence, to a defence of comment in the public interest but not nearly far enough.

The whole law of defamation should be abolished and replaced with:

- A privacy law which prevents intrusion into a person's private life without there being a compelling public interest for the intrusion.

- A statutory Tribunal which can rule on the substantive truth or falsity of media reports and whether publication was justified by the public interest, and award modest sums of compensation for injury to feelings and require the publication of corrections and apologies. Lawyers would be banned from appearing in this Tribunal except as litigants in person.

- The existing law of malicious falsehood.

 

[teuchter]

What is the Reynolds defence?

 

[aylee]

What is the Reynolds defence?

A reference to this case in the House of Lords:

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1999/45.html

The Times was arguing that the American approach, which is basically that publishing wrong information about a public figure is protected from defamation proceedings on the ground of freedom of speech, should be applied in the UK. That was rejected, but the House of Lords did say that there might be a defence of qualified privilege available to the press in some circumstances.

To explain, "qualified privilege", in broad terms, is a defence to a defamation claim provided that the claimant cannot prove that the publication was malicious. There are various circumstances of "qualified privilege", but just because the press are publishing material about public figures doesn't bring them within that description. The basic approach is set out in Lord Nicholls' speech:

My conclusion is that the established common law approach to misstatements of fact remains essentially sound. The common law should not develop 'political information' as a new 'subject-matter' category of qualified privilege, whereby the publication of all such information would attract qualified privilege, whatever the circumstances. That would not provide adequate protection for reputation. Moreover, it would be unsound in principle to distinguish political discussion from discussion of other matters of serious public concern. The elasticity of the common law principle enables interference with freedom of speech to be confined to what is necessary in the circumstances of the case. This elasticity enables the court to give appropriate weight, in today's conditions, to the importance of freedom of expression by the media on all matters of public concern.

Depending on the circumstances, the matters to be taken into account include the following. The comments are illustrative only.

1. The seriousness of the allegation. The more serious the charge, the more the public is misinformed and the individual harmed, if the allegation is not true.
2. The nature of the information, and the extent to which the subject-matter is a matter of public concern.
3. The source of the information. Some informants have no direct knowledge of the events. Some have their own axes to grind, or are being paid for their stories.
4. The steps taken to verify the information.
5. The status of the information. The allegation may have already been the subject of an investigation which commands respect.
6. The urgency of the matter. News is often a perishable commodity.
7. Whether comment was sought from the plaintiff. He may have information others do not possess or have not disclosed. An approach to the plaintiff will not always be necessary.
8. Whether the article contained the gist of the plaintiff's side of the story.
9. The tone of the article. A newspaper can raise queries or call for an investigation. It need not adopt allegations as statements of fact.
10. The circumstances of the publication, including the timing.

This list is not exhaustive. The weight to be given to these and any other relevant factors will vary from case to case. Any disputes of primary fact will be a matter for the jury, if there is one. The decision on whether, having regard to the admitted or proved facts, the publication was subject to qualified privilege is a matter for the judge. This is the established practice and seems sound. A balancing operation is better carried out by a judge in a reasoned judgment than by a jury. Over time, a valuable corpus of case law will be built up.

In general, a newspaper's unwillingness to disclose the identity of its sources should not weigh against it. Further, it should always be remembered that journalists act without the benefit of the clear light of hindsight. Matters which are obvious in retrospect may have been far from clear in the heat of the moment. Above all, the court should have particular regard to the importance of freedom of expression. The press discharges vital functions as a bloodhound as well as a watchdog. The court should be slow to conclude that a publication was not in the public interest and, therefore, the public had no right to know, especially when the information is in the field of political discussion. Any lingering doubts should be resolved in favour of publication.

 

[Signal 11]

On 17th June 2009, 15 months after Singh’s article was published, the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) has finally produced its evidence
[...]
As expected, the list of references they give is truly pathetic, The list of 29 references has nine about infantile colic, four about asthma (two of which refer to osteopathy not chiropractic). three about the safety of chiropractic (a contentious matter but not the point here) amd three about the safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (an important matter but utterly irrelevant here).

http://www.dcscience.net/?p=1775

More coverage:
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/06/bca-v-singh-bcas-third-update.html
http://layscience.net/node/598
http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2009/06/18/examining-the-bcas-plethora-of-evidence/

 

[teuchter]

Legal Update BCA v Singh

Simon Singh announced today that he will continue the fight in his libel case with the British Chiropractic Association after his application to appeal the preliminary ruling was rejected last week. He has now has the option to try and overturn that decision at an oral appeal. If this fails his case will be tried on a meaning of a phrase he did not intend and is indefensible. This highlights the problem of narrow defences that, along with high costs and wide jurisdiction, make the English libel laws so restrictive to free speech.

Simon said today: “I can confirm today that I have applied for a hearing to ask the Court of Appeal to reconsider its recent denial of permission. A great deal has happened since my original article was published back in April 2008 and I suspect that the libel case will continue for many more months (or maybe years). While my case is ongoing, it continues to raise a whole series of arguably more important issues, particularly the appalling state of English libel laws. I am pleased that the Culture Secretary has agreed to meet with signatories of the Keep Libel Laws out of Science campaign statement to hear how the laws affect writers. We are also pursuing a meeting at the Ministry of Justice and with front benchers in other departments to lobby for a change in the law.”

Read Simon’s full statement and more about his next steps here: http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/freedebate

 

[fogbat]

The BCA had no wish for its dispute with Simon Singh to end up in the courtroom

Then why start the libel proceedings?

Pricks.

 

[berniedicters]

Then why start the libel proceedings?

Pricks.

"We had no other choice. He forced us into it" - and other choice exculpatory bollocks.

I fear for science if libel cases are ever to become routine in situations like this.

 

[teuchter]

This Wednesday - October 14th - Simon Singh's appeal hearing will be held.

This is an appeal against the previous ruling on "meaning" (see earlier in thread).

More background and details here:

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/10/simon-singh-background-to-next-hearing.html

 

[xes]

* OK, I haven't checked the situation in Vanuatu

and you probably won't, they've been getting arse raped by earthquakes these last 2 weeks! and

 

[fogbat]

He's been granted permission to appeal

 

[teuchter]

Good stuff. Hats off to Simon Singh.

Lord Justice Laws

Good name.

 

[Signal 11]

It looks like the BCA may have libelled Simon Singh in their recent press release, which has now been switched for an updated one with the allegation removed.

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/10/bca-defame-simon-singh.html

 

[teuchter]

It looks like the BCA may have libelled Simon Singh in their recent press release, which has now been switched for an updated one with the allegation removed.

http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/10/bca-defame-simon-singh.html

That would be fun, if he sued them for that...

 

[teuchter]

Case will be heard tomorrow:

On Tuesday 23rd February, Simon Singh’s libel case with the British Chiropractic Association is before the Court of Appeal in London. His case will be heard by three of the most powerful legal figures in the UK, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and Lord Justice Sedley. Simon’s case is very significant and depending on how it goes, could either strengthen our right to ‘fair comment’ or hugely undermine it. Look out for coverage of this in The Daily Telegraph, The Times, the Guardian and elsewhere on Tuesday.

 

[Poi E]

Good stuff. Time to sort out Mr Justice Eady's creative decisions.

 

[teuchter]

Well. Let's not count any chickens yet eh.

 

[Jonti]

Index on Censorship reports ...

England’s most senior judge today said he was “baffled” by the British Chiropractic Association’s (BCA) defamation suit against science writer Simon Singh.

Presiding at the appeal court in London today in a pre-trial hearing on the meaning of words in a 2008 article by Singh criticising chiropractic treatments, Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge said he was “troubled” by the “artificiality” of the case.

“The opportunities to put this right have not been taken,” Lord Judge said.

He continued: “At the end of this someone will pay an enormous amount of money, whether it be from Dr Singh’s funds or the funds of BCA subscribers.”

He went on to criticise the BCA’s reluctance to publish evidence to back up claims that chiropractic treatments could treat childhood asthma and other ailments.

“I’m just baffled. If there is reliable evidence, why hasn’t someone published it?”

However, Lord Judge stressed that his comments would not affect the judgment of the case before the Court of Appeal.

read more >>

 

[Jonti]

While we're waiting to see if these baby-twisting motherfuckers get slapped down, here's Penn and Teller's take on the loony fuckwitted cult ...


And there's a good slashdot thread here!

Enjoy!