British Chiropractic Association abandons libel case against Simon Singh

This article was migrated from an old version of our website in 2025. As a result, it might have some low-quality images or non-functioning links - if there's any issues you'd like to see fixed, get in touch with us at info@journalism.co.uk.

There used to be something here that couldn't be migrated - please contact us at info@journalism.co.uk if you'd like to see this updated!

After a legal battle lasting nearly two years, the British Chiropractic Association has abandoned its libel case against science writer Simon Singh.

Singh's barrister, William McCormick QC of Ely Place Chambers today announced [Thursday] that the BCA has served a Notice of Discontinuance, "bringing to an end its ill-fated libel claim against Dr Simon Singh arising out of criticisms he made of its promotion of treatments for childhood ailments".

At the beginning of April, Simon Singh successfully appealed the initial ruling over a Guardian article he wrote criticising the British Chiropractic Association.

Singh was personally sued for libel by the BCA in July 2008, and in May 2009 Mr Justice Eady ruled Singh's article as a statement of "fact". The new ruling determined that Singh could defend his writing as "fair comment".

In the appeal hearing, the Lord Justice Chief Judge said he was "baffled" by the BCA's claim against Singh.

The Court of Appeal's overturning of the order "led the BCA to abandon its claim", says Singh's barrister, in today's statement.

On Tuesday [13 April], before he knew the BCA would discontinue its claim, Simon Singh told Journalism.co.uk he would be prepared to fight for two more years if necessary.

"The case could carry on for another two years; they could go to Supreme Court," he said, following a Frontline Club libel reform debate. "I'm more than happy to discuss it in a trial, the statements I made in the article."

"I'm much happier with the position it stands now, as opposed to two weeks ago."

There used to be something here that couldn't be migrated - please contact us at info@journalism.co.uk if you'd like to see this updated!

But he said he was "annoyed and angry" that it's taken a couple of years and hundreds of thousands of pounds to decide the meaning of a couple of words.

"The ruling two weeks ago was quite clear, the judges said: 'we do not want to see scientists being hauled through the libel courts'."

"My interpretation of their ruling is that the default defence will be one of comment, which immediately gives scientists and researchers a bit more confidence if they go to trial."

In a statement today, Singh's barrister said: "Dr Singh's predicament as the sole defendant in an action brought in respect of a comment piece in the Guardian newspaper (to which the BCA  never directed any complaint) was seen as a rallying point for those concerned about the abuse of UK libel laws in connection with scientific debate."

The victory coincided with the Libel Reform Campaign petition reaching more than 50,000 signatures. Singh's case was pivotal in the campaign - a coalition between Sense About Science, Index on Censorship and English PEN - in its case for reform of English libel laws.

Last night, Singh tweeted: "50,000 signatures, 3 party pledges, 268 MPs backing EDM - it's been a great 5 months for www.libelreform.org - but more work still to do."

Journalism.co.uk could not reach the BCA for comment.

Update:

The BCA has issued a statement on its decision to drop its claim, which is published in full on the Journalism.co.uk Editors' Blog .

Following the recent appeal ruling on meaning, the BCA has decided to discontinue its action and accept that Singh did not intend to suggest the BCA was dishonest, it said. Its statement says:

"While it still considers that the article was defamatory of the BCA, 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.

"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.

"The BCA takes seriously its duty and responsibilities to members and to chiropractic patients. The BCA has considered seeking leave to take this matter to the Supreme Court and has been advised there are strong grounds for appeal against the Court of Appeal judgement. However, while it was right to bring this claim at the outset, the BCA now feels that the time is right for the matter to draw to a close."

Disclaimer: Journalism.co.uk has pledged its support to the Libel Reform campaign.