Science libel: It's a £1m bet with a 30% chance of losing, says Simon Singh

A British science journalist currently being sued by the British Chiropractic Association, wants to see reform of England and Wales's notoriously strict libel laws within 12 months, he said at a debate last night.

Simon Singh, who described the leave of appeal granted in his case this week as the 'best possible result' at this stage, was joined by three other libel law reformists and one brave libel lawyer last night for City University's debate on the effect of libel laws on science.

The event marking the launch of a new MA in science journalism asked whether scientific debate is silenced by the use of English libel laws and if this keeps the public in the dark.

"The big problem full stop is the sheer cost involved," said Singh. It is the legal cost of fighting such cases, rather than the damages, that is the concern, he argued, suggesting sums of £500,000, £1 million and £3 million as example figures.  

"How do you risk losing a case and risk losing a million pounds? If you're a blogger, a small publisher, a local newspaper, that could mean bankruptcy. Even if you're a major newspaper £1 million is a phenomenal amount of money," he said.

It is not enough to be telling the truth, he said, citing that 95 per cent of cases are won by claimants.

A lawyer would never tell a journalist that they've got more than a 70 per cent chance of victory, he added.

"The uncertainties in the legal system are such that you can't ever be 70 per cent sure. You're then placing a £1 million bet with a 30 per cent chance of losing," he said.

Even if the journalist wins, they will be putting £300,000 on the line, he added: "The sensible thing to do from the get-go is to apologise, pay the minimal damages and get out quickly."

Furthermore, the other side never picks up the entire bill, he said.

Singh proposed widening the public interest defence and reversing the burden of proof.

"Litigation in England is expensive whatever you do. The problem with libel is it's expensive and the laws are unfair - they're weighted against the journalists," he said.

The next 12 months are a 'real opportunity to change the law', he claimed, encouraging anyone affected by libel threats to get in touch with the 'Keep Libel Laws Out of Science' campaign, led by Sense About Science. A dossier will be compiled as part of the campaign, he said.

Singh's comments were supported by Sense About Science managing director Tracey Brown, who said academic journals were refusing to publish important articles for fear of being sued.

"We have this phenomenon already that people will tell you interesting things off the record and be very vague and polite on the record (...) we live in this world in which we all talk in euphemisms and politeness," she said.

Duncan Lamont, a libel lawyer who acts on behalf of claimants, as well as defending media clients, said that even euphemism could not protect individuals and publishers: "Don't worry, the lawyers have got there first and made sure that could never happen - because we've introduced 'innuendo'.

"If any of you can work out what the clever journalists are trying to tell you we can sue (...) You can't get away with it."

Lamont argued that libel laws were actually highly regarded in other parts of the world: "It's not my libel laws; it's 'our libel laws': they've been going for 500 years plus, they have constantly evolved and are continuing to constantly evolve.

"They belong to us all and if we think they're bad, a lot of people - whatever we may think - throughout the world, think they're wonderful.

"Not because they come here and sue - although there is a bit of that - but because we have the freedom to publish and be damned."

However, Bad Science blogger and newspaper columnist Ben Goldacre - who successfully fought off a libel action earlier this year - argued that libel laws were stifling free speech and were threatening medical criticism.

"All discourse about medical treatment, any public discourse about what works and what doesn't, has to be conducted in an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty because you never know who will come knocking on your door," he said.

Chief executive of Index on Censorship, the former New Statesman editor John Kampfner, said that for him court orders forbidding reporting of particular high profile legal cases and the 'misuse' of human rights law, such as the European Convention on Human Rights Article 8, were even more chilling than the high costs involved.

A review by the Index on Censorship and English PEN will be released on November 10 2009, the results of a year long enquiry, including information gathered from newspaper editors and lawyers. This will help the campaign for reform, Kampfner said.

Free daily newsletter

If you like our news and feature articles, you can sign up to receive our free daily (Mon-Fri) email newsletter (mobile friendly).