Victory for Singh and one in the eye for Eady

Mr Justice Eady has got it wrong again in a libel action, says the Court of Appeal. His ruling that Simon Singh’s article in the guardian meant that the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) knowingly promoted bogus treatments has been overturned.

Singh has written extensively about the bogus claims of some chiros that their treatments can cure a range of children’s ailments. He wrote that the BCA was willingly promoting these bogus claims. The BCA is suing for libel. Eady ruled that the words meant that the BCA knew they were bogus and Singh would have to prove it.

This week the Appeal Court said Eady was wrong.

Where’s the jury?
What, anyway, was he doing sitting without a jury and deciding a matter of fact rather than law? The role of the jury is being eroded too much in libel.

This slap down follows a string of reversed decisions he made in the Desmond v Bower case.

The Court of Appeal is becoming an unlikely champion of free speech.

But just having to appeal ups the ante for the defence because of the costs.

BBC libel fees almost £1 m since start of 2008

News that the BBC has paid out almost £1 million in costs and damages for libel from current affairs programmes in 2 years has shocked the Sunday Express. Not me.

The BBC received 71 complaints about libel since January 2008 and spent £121,000 on lawyers to defend itself, says the Sunday Express.

Consider just one fact about the output of the BBC: over 78,000 radio hours in its past financial year over 10 radio networks. And it has 8 tv networks also pumping out hours of viewing.

Current affairs is a central part of the BBC. The BBC spends £4.5 billion on operating expenditure, putting out those radio and TV hours, putting up the websites and all the support needed to do that.

For which it has to pay out, under our libel laws, just £1 million in nearly 2 years. Well worth it for a public broadcaster.

Unless you think a public broadcaster should not libel anybody. That’s not at all possible for a current affairs remit.

And unless you think a public broadcaster should not compete with the private sector. That, I suspect, is the root of this Sunday Express story.

But well done to the Sunday Express for using the Freedom of Information Act to get this information. All public bodies should be open to public scrutiny using this legislation.

Pity that private operations which as Richard Desmond’s empire are not so open.