The British Chiropractic Association (BCA) has abandoned its controversial libel action against science writer Simon Singh.
The BCA served a Notice of Discontinuance today, ending its claim against Singh over criticisms he made of its promotion of treatments for children.
The action has lasted two years and cost in excess of £100,000.
In a statement, the BCA said: “As previously made clear, the BCA brought the claim because it considered that Simon Singh had made a serious allegation against its reputation, namely, that the BCA promoted treatments that it knew to be ‘bogus’.”
The BCA said the Court of Appeal decision last week “provides Dr Singh with a defence such that the BCA has taken the view that it should withdraw to avoid further legal costs being incurred by either side”.
It added: “As those who have followed the publicity surrounding this case will know, Simon Singh has said publicly that he had never intended to suggest that the BCA had been dishonest.
“The BCA accepts this statement, which goes some way to vindicating its position.”
Last week, the BCA came in for scathing criticism in a Court of Appeal ruling on whether Singh’s article, published in The Guardian newspaper two years ago, were expressions of opinion or assertions of fact. Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, commented on the “chilling effect” on public debate of the BCA’s action, and noted they had chosen to sue Singh, a freelance writer and broadcaster, rather than the newspaper group which published it.
Mr Justice Eady had previously ruled that Singh’s words were fact, which meant that Singh had to prove they were factually correct in order to win. This would have effectively meant a question of science being decided in a courtroom.
The Court of Appeal overturned Eady J’s decision, in BCA v Dr Singh [2010] EWCA Civ 350. It found that Singh’s criticisms were expressions of opinion and that he could therefore use 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, a freelance writer and broadcaster, 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.
“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.”
