Lord Judge to chair landmark libel appeal hearing
Related images
Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, the country’s most senior judge, will chair a panel of three to preside over a landmark libel trial set to be heard by the Court of Appeal in February.
The Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger and Lord Justice Sedley will share the panel to preside over the preliminary hearing of author Simon Singh’s appeal of the judgment in an earlier case against brought against him by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA).
It is understood that there were deliberations over the panel because of the significance of the case. Originally Lord Justice Richards and Lady Justice Arden were to join Sedley LJ to hear the case.
Judge LCJ is believed to have expressed a keen interest in its outcome and his appointment to the panel will be confirmed on Monday.
Singh’s lawyer Robert Dougans, an associate at Bryan Cave, was informed of Judge LCJ’s appointment by The Lawyer magazine. He expressed his surprise at the decision, adding that it was “highly unusual” to have both the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls sitting together, especially for a preliminary appeal hearing.
“The news is very encouraging as it shows the judiciary are going to look into the wider area of libel law,” he said. “We’ve worked very hard to get the Court of Appeal to take this case on, but I’m not sure we dare be optimistic.
In 2008 the BCA sued Singh for libel after The Guardian ran an article in which he was critical of the view that chiropractors can cure disease by manipulating the spine.
During a High Court hearing in May Mr Justice Eady ruled that the article should be considered as fact and that it contained “the plainest allegation of dishonesty and indeed it accuses them [the BCA] of thoroughly disreputable conduct”.
Dougans at Bryan Cave instructed 5 Raymond Building’s Adrienne Page QC to act for Singh in his appeal.
Doughty Street’s Heather Rogers QC has been instructed by Collyer Bristow partner Rhory Robertson to act for the BCA.
The news has been well received by the National Campaign for Libel Reform, which officially launched this week.
Formed from a coalition of campaign groups English PEN, Index on Censorship and Sense About Science, The National Campaign for Libel Reform took its campaign to the House of Commons on Thursday, urging MPs to support a bill for major reforms of English libel laws.
A mixture of celebrities, broadcasters, publishers and members of academia attended the event, including the BBC’s Nick Ross, the president of the Association of British Science Writers Natasha Loder and Gill Phillips, director of editorial legal services at The Guardian.
Phillips said: “There’s a long way to go to identify what reforms are needed. But the cross party consensus reflects the width of concern from all walks of life that libel needs to change.”
Readers' comments (6)
Anonymous | 15-Jan-2010 10:21 pm
Yeah right, I mean hows he gonna pay either his costs or the damages?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
JMS | 19-Jan-2010 4:24 am
Just came back from a talk by Singh. He says that he has quite a bit of money from some of his successful books, and is willing to put quite a bit of it on the line.
Suffice it to say that he believes that he can cover the costs, and as usual in libel the damages will probably be minute compared to the costs.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Bob Ziegler | 19-Feb-2010 3:28 pm
I can't believe this case has been marketed as a question of someones right to free speech!? It boils down to the fact that the word used by Singh 'bogus' implies an attempt to deceive. You just can't use this word without proof of attempts to deceive. As a yank I find it laughable that UK law would protect the accused no matter what.....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26-Mar-2010 3:08 pm
Simon Singh has no one but himself to blame, did he not first write an article broadly criticising chiropractic as a profession rather than the BCA specifically?
Obviously, the BCA attempt to bring an action against him for liable was unsuccessful, but he then goes on to write ANOTHER article repeating similar claims about the BCA specifically. Perhaps he should have thought about the legal costs before he engaged in point scoring with them!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Stewart | 2-Dec-2010 3:41 am
The legal costs are pretty much a side issue:
He has the means to pay them (if he loses).
As for making Bogus Claims MR American, if you actually read the article and watch the TV program you will see exactly what claims he makes.
Would any sensible person conclude that Spinal Manipulation can cure Diseases such as Mumps, Rubella, etc...
When it is known what causes these illnesses and what cures them, and manipulation of someone's bones is certainly not one of them.
To think that it is or could be is bordering on insanity.
As for the UK protecting The Accused, that in itself is a joke.
Libel Laws in the UK demand that the Person who perpetrated the Libel Prove there case. In other words you are Guilty until you can prove otherwise.
Patently this is wrong, and unjust.
The Burden of Proof should always be for the prosecution to prove, not the defendant.
Or perhaps you would consider that Trials are a waste of time and we should just go straight to the Electric Chair or Lethal Injection?
Do not lecture us (the UK) on bad law, when the US legal system is so politicised and corrupt that a Black man cannot BUY a fair trial, yet White Rich Folks walk away from Murder every day.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Scep Tick | 2-Dec-2010 11:27 am
"Libel Laws in the UK demand that the Person who perpetrated the Libel Prove there case. In other words you are Guilty until you can prove otherwise.
Patently this is wrong, and unjust."
Why? Why should a defendant be chary of backing up what he says? The alternative would lead to all sorts of stochastic mud being thrown on the basis that some of it would stick. Not sure what that would do for responsible journalism.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment