> Given we have quite a few lawyers on the list, especially the ones which > practice in UK. I was wondering if they would share their insights :)
Apologies - I've been meaning to get to this for a while now. First, a better account of the case: <http://www.thelawyer.com/story.aspx?storycode=1003557&PageNo=3&SortOrder=dateadded&PageSize=10#comments> It's by the blogger Jack of Kent who is a major Simon Singh supporter, but the explanation (and more importantly, the discussion in the comments) is very good. Key points: -Even Jack of Kent accepts that the BCA don't necessarily have a bad case - he questions whether such a legal prosecution is wise in the first place - and on that point I completely agree - the claim has backfired spectacularly on them. -Saying that, while I am all for freedom of speech, I don't agree with a lot of the handwringing in this case. As some of the commenters to the article point out, I find it difficult to see how anyone could read that article and think that Singh was doing anything other than accusing the BCA of deliberately promoting fraudulent treatments - they key quote is "'This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.'" -As a result, in my opinion, Mr Justice Eady - who has received a lot of flak for ruling that Singh was making a statement of fact, instead of expressing an opinion (this is the key point under appeal now) - was correct. -This means that Singh would have had to prove justification - that is that the BCA knew its treatments were bogus and still deliberately promoted them. -On that point I have sympathy for Singh and other libel defendants - I haven't looked into libel law in much detail (and I don't really practice it) but it seems a bit unfair that libel defendants should have to prove the truth of their allegations (albeit in certain restricted circumstances) and not the other way around. -On the whole though, I don't think English libel law is as broken as the media likes to make it out to be - there is a healthy dose of self-interest involved (see for example the personal attacks by Paul Dacre of teh Daily Mail against Mr Justice Eady - the key libel judge in the High Court). There is also a rather good speech by Lord Hoffmann floating around where he defends English libel law - I will try to dig it out. Badri
