Medicine

The science writer Simon Singh stands to lose £60,000 in legal costs despite winning a case against chiropractors who sued him for libel over his criticism of their medical claims. The British Chiropractic Association (BCA) dropped its action against the journalist yesterday after a Court of Appeal ruling two weeks ago found that Dr Singh’s “honest opinion” was entitled to a fair comment defence. The judgment noted that: “Scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation.”

The BCA had sued Dr Singh for libel over a newspaper article in which he alleged that the organisation promoted “bogus treatments”, such as chiropractic for childhood asthma and colic, that were not supported by evidence.

Although Dr Singh’s lawyers will pursue the BCA for costs, he is likely to recover only 70 per cent of the £200,000 he has spent on defending himself.

Dr Singh said that the bill he faced, even after being vindicated, highlighted the “chilling effect” of English libel law on freedom of expression.

“My bill for a clear victory could be £60,000,” he said. “That explains why people don’t fight libel cases: even if you win, you lose. My victory does not mean that our libel laws are OK, because I won despite the libel laws.

“English libel law is so intimidating, so expensive, so hostile to serious journalists that it has a chilling effect on all areas of debate, silencing scientists, journalists, bloggers, human rights activists and everyone else who dares to tackle serious matters of public interest.”

His solicitor, Robert Dougans, of Bryan Cave LLP, said: “In the game of libel, even winning is costly and stressful. Until we have a proper public interest defence, scientists and writers are going to have to carry on making the unenviable choice of either shying away from hard-hitting debate, or paying through the nose for the privilege of defending it.”

The Court of Appeal reversed a ruling by the High Court last May that Dr Singh’s comments were factual assertions rather than expressions of opinion, which meant that he could not use the defence of fair comment.

In a statement the BCA said: “The decision 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.”

Mr Dougans said that the Court of Appeal judgment would help other scientists and science writers to defend libel actions, such as Peter Wilmshurst, a cardiologist who is being sued for raising concerns about research into a heart device. It will not now be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

“It is going to become increasingly difficult to sue over public debate of scientific issues,” he said. “Dr Wilmshurst is going to have a cast-iron defence now.”

Mr Dougans noted, however, that defendants rarely recovered more than 70 per cent of their costs even when libel actions were dropped.

Dr Singh could also incur further costs if the BCA does not have the funds to reimburse him. Had he lost the case at trial, he could have been liable for costs of both sides of up to £1 million. He said that he had spent 45 full weeks working on the case over the past two years, adding: “That is essentially a year’s worth of work and earnings.”

He said that he felt a huge relief. “Fortunately the case has ended when my son Hari is only three weeks old, so I can now relax and enjoy being a father.

“The good news is that all three main parties this week committed to a libel reform Bill in the next Parliament. But libel reform has to be radical. Cutting costs by a half means that a trial will not cost £1 million but cost £500,000, but this is still extortionate. Costs need to be cut by a factor of 10 at least.”

He added: “The Court of Appeal judgment says that when a science journalist is sued for libel for criticising evidence, the defence of fair comment should be the default position. But that doesn’t stop libel tourism, or huge companies suing individual scientists, journalists or bloggers to silence them.”