Simon Singh loses first attempt at permission to appeal
Simon Singh’s statement
Tuesday 11th August 2009
I can confirm today that I have applied for a hearing to ask the Court of Appeal to reconsider its recent denial of permission. For anyone new to the case, here is a brief timeline of events:
2008 April I publish an article about chiropractic in the Guardian.
2008 July The British Chiropractic Association (BCA) sues me personally for libel.
2009 May High Court gives a very negative ruling on the meaning of my article.
2009 June I ask for permission to appeal the ruling on meaning (paper application).
2009 July The application to appeal is rejected.
2009 August I am now asking again for permission to appeal the ruling.
The new application will be oral, as opposed to the previous one, which was on paper. The oral hearing is set for 14th October
Continue reading Simon’s statement here
Friday 31st July 2009
David Allen Green explains the court’s decision:
“The Court Office today confirmed to me that, in an Order sealed on 30 July 2009, the Court of Appeal has refused Simon Singh’s application for permission to appeal (PTA). Letters have been sent to the parties (but there is a post strike in London.) Simon Singh needed PTA because it had been refused at first instance at the preliminary hearing in May. There are no further details yet, including reasons. I understand that this refusal may now mean he can make an “oral renewal” before the Court of Appeal. More information will be provided as it becomes available”
Sense About Science response to the court’s decision:
“It was announced today that the Court of Appeal has denied Simon Singh leave to appeal the preliminary ruling in his libel case with the British Chiropractic Association. Simon now has an option to apply for an oral hearing to try to overturn that decision. If he decides not to or if this fails his case will be tried on a meaning of a phrase he did not intend and is indefensible. This decision highlights the problem of narrow defences that, along with high costs and wide jurisdiction, make the English libel laws so restrictive to free speech.
The Keep Libel Laws out of Science campaign is working with Index on Censorship, EnglishPEN, Article 19 and the legal writer David Allen Green to put together proposals for a solid public interest defence that would affect science and health writing and journalism more widely. Meanwhile, efforts to publicise the poverty of evidence for chiropractic claims, the subject of Simon’s original article, are also continuing and have become prolific in the blogosphere.”
Simon Singh’s comment on the court’s decision:
“The Court of Appeal’s refusal is obviously disappointing, but I remain in good spirits. I will not be making a decision about my response until I have seen the official letter and the details of the refusal, and I will also need time to discuss the situation with friends, colleagues, supporters and family. In the meantime, while my particular libel case is ongoing, it continues to raise a whole series of arguably more important issues, particularly the appalling state of English libel laws. I am pleased that the Culture Secretary has agreed to meet with signatories of the Keep Libel Laws out of Science campaign statement to hear how the laws affect writers. We are also pursuing a meeting at the Ministry of Justice and with front benchers in other departments to lobby for a change in the law.”
Last updated: October 07 2009
