Can the Simon Singh verdict be a catalyst for wholesale libel reform?

It may not be the hub for much else at the moment but Britain is the world’s hub of libel tourism.

British libel law is such that foreign plaintiffs are bringing cases they would lose in their own country to Britain. In fact, 90% of cases brought in Britain find in favour of the plaintiff.

In fact, the law is such an issue that some US states have already implemented laws protecting their citizens from the enforcement of legal settlements in other jurisdictions, such as Britain. Not only that, there is a similar federal law in front of the US Congress waiting to be passed.

The chairman of the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport committee, John Whittingdale, accepts that libel tourism is a problem;

“It is a humiliation that U.S. legislators have felt it necessary to take steps to protect freedom of speech from what are seen as unreasonable incursions by our courts”

In the US, libel laws require the plaintiff (person allegedly being libelled) to prove that the statements made were both false and carried malice. In Britain it is quite the opposite. The defendant must prove that what they said was true.

Cue the Simon Singh case.

Simon Singh made a comment in the Guardian newspaper in 2008 questioning whether there was any evidence to support claims made by the British Chiropractic Association that its practitioners could cure various childhood ailments such as asthma. The British Chiropractic Association began a defamation law suit, alleging that he had accused them of supporting bogus treatments.

Under current libel law in the UK, it was not good enough for Dr Singh to say that this was simply his opinion. He had to go ahead and prove that what he said was true.

As you’d expect in this case, the High Court found that what Dr Singh had said was a statement of fact and not opinion, and so he was found guilty in May 2009. However, a panel of three judges (Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger and Lord Justice Sedley) found that the High Court judge at the time, Mr Justice Eady, had “erred in his approach”.

“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.”

- Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge

Today it was found that what Simon Singh said could be termed as “fair comment”, therefore, presumably, it’s an opinion. Unfortunately the legal bill is £200,000, and if the BCA take this to the Supreme Court, which they have said they intend to do, then this bill will multiply.

Scientists have welcomed this verdict saying that had the previous verdict been allowed to stand, it would have been nigh on impossible for resourceful big companies such as those involved in pharmaceuticals to be challenged about claims they made in relation to their products.

Amusingly there has been a public backlash.  The General Chiropractic Council says that members cannot make advertising claims that have been ruled against by the Advertising Standards Authority. Enter angry public, stage left. The BCA member list has been systematically trawled, looking for advertising claims that are against the General Chiropractic Council’s rules. The result? Over 600 chiropractors were reported – including officers of the BCA!

Despite this verdict, libel laws are still massively unbalanced. Even Justice Secretary Jack Straw agrees, and pledged reform in November 2009. The Conservatives have said there will be libel reform in the first year of a Conservative government, and Nick Clegg has said that the Libel Reform Campaign is doing a good job.

All good to hear, but how has this archaic law been allowed to continue in its current state for so long and be exploited so many times so that extremely rich people can get richer?