Here is a link to an article on the Simon Singh case and how it referenced defamation law in jurisdictions such as NZ.

Great that the BCA dropped their case - chalk one up for the good guys.

I'm not so sure this is a win...

I'm happy for Simon Singh and all that, but I was kind of looking forward to seeing the BCA having to defend themselves in court...

Now that the definition has been changed, they're running and hiding under a rock. I say turn the rocks over and expose them and their practices to the light...

I'm not so sure this is a win...

I'm happy for Simon Singh and all that, but I was kind of looking forward to seeing the BCA having to defend themselves in court...

Now that the definition has been changed, they're running and hiding under a rock. I say turn the rocks over and expose them and their practices to the light...

I agree with you in principle, but the courts are seldom about delivering justice, and usually about administering the law. Even though the case would have been far easier to defend for Simon Singh, it would still have been extremely expensive and the outcome would most certainly have hinged on whether or not Singh's comments were honestly held opinion, rather than whether or not the BCA's claims are factually correct. In the forum of public opinion I very much doubt that this case would have had any real impact on public perceptions of chiropractic.

The Law Lords decision certainly changes the landscape in the UK as far as libel is concerned, making it safer for people to speak out (though it would appear only in certain circumstances) but it does not change the fundamental flaws in their libel laws whereby the accused is guilty until they prove themselves innocent.

A bit delayed, sorry, but here is the text to the actual case if anyone is interested:

http://www.worldlii.o...