BCA v Singh

...is an important recent ruling of the Court of Appeal that has several interesting applications for AS law students.

Singh is a journalist who published an article in the Guardian newspaper that was critical of chiropractors, and in particular of claims that their treatment was effective for things such as prolonged crying in infants. He was subsequently sued for libel by the British Chiropractors' Association.

The judge at first instance found that Singh's assertion that chiropractors "happily promote bogus treatments" meant, to paraphrase "deliberately untruthful". Libel law requires a defendant to prove the truth of such a statement - this is a reversal of the usual burden of proof. Obviously, based on that finding, Singh would struggle to prove his allegation to be true.

However, Singh's view was that the judge was wrong on this, and he therefore appealed to the Court of Appeal, whose recent judgment supports Singh's view, which is that his article was comment rather than a statement of fact. Although this was only a preliminary ruling, the BCA have now discontinued their action against Singh.

There are several points for you to note here:

Firstly, the campaign for libel reform is a great example of influcences on law reform - in this case, pressure groups. All parties have now committed in their manifestos to consider the issue.

Secondly, the judges in the Court of Appeal relied in part on an American case, Underwager v Salter. This is an example of the persuasive effect of foreign judgments on English courts.

Thirdly, there are links here to the rule of law, and in particular to the idea that everyone is equal before the law. Some say libel law is used by the rich as a muzzle to silence their critics, effectively using the huge costs of defending a libel action to force critics to back down, or risk bankruptcy.

The "super injunction" they didn't want you to see...

...has now been published by the Guardian. Have a look here.

Trafigura and super-injunctions

Can't believe I haven't blogged this yet... this has been a massive week for the law, freedom of speech and social media.

Should a company be allowed to obtain an injunction restricting the press from reporting something, AND restricting the press from reporting the injunction itself?

Oil-trading company Trafigura have been in hot water, accused of dumping potentially toxic waste off the Ivory Coast, which was alleged to have caused illness and injury to many people.

They commissioned a scientific report into the matter, and then attempted to keep it secret, presumably not liking the contents, which included the idea that the dumping of waste could hace caused effects such as severe burns to the skin and lungs, eye damage, permanent ulceration, coma and death (although the report was expressed in cautious terms).

Clearly those people suing Trafigura for personal injury would have liked to see this report!

Last month Trafigura paid residents of Abidjan in Ivory Coast £30m plus costs in a confidential out of court settlement.

Before the settlement announcement, Trafigura's lawyers Carter-Ruck obtained a super-injunction from Court, banning the press not only from revealing the existence of the Minton report, but also from telling anyone about the existence of the injunction. They also attempted to stop reports of questions about this matter that were asked in Parliament.

As a result Trafigura and their lawyers have been accused of trying to gag Parliament and infringe on freedom of speech. Another feature of this case was the pressure applied by people using Twitter, who were outraged by the injunction!

Read Charlie Brooker on this here.