Science writer Simon Singh was celebrating today after winning the latest round of his legal battle over his right to criticise complementary medicine practitioners.
Dr Singh won a court of appeal hearing against the British Chiropractic Association.
The association had sued him for criticising it directly for promoting the therapy, which uses manipulation to treat a range of problems.
The case has become seen as a key test of British libel law’s ability to allow freedom of speech.
Last night the chiropractors said they were considering an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Richard Brown, president of the British Chiropractic Association, said "It never was, and it is still not our intention, to curb freedom or speech, whether in the field of scientific research or elsewhere."
He said the association brought the case because Dr Singh stated it "happily promotes bogus treatments."
In yesterday’s judgement, the court of appeal decreed the statement was comment and opinion, not an allegation of fact.
Dr Singh said last night: "It is ridiculous that it has cost £200,000 to establish the meaning of a handful of words. I am delighted that my meaning has been vindicated by three of the most powerful judges in the country, and I relish the opportunity to defend this meaning in court.
"However, I am still angry that libel is so horrendously expensive."
Tracey Brown, of campaign group Sense About Science, said: "Until we have a public interest defence we will see more cases like this. It is ludicrous that something that should be as straight forward as knowing whether your words are defensible should be so complicated to establish."
Leave a Reply