People

Sikh-Briton Scientist Simon Singh Vanquishes Goliath

by JOHN-PAUL FLINTOFF

 

 

Sikh-Briton Simon Singh possesses two things that matter.

"He has a wallet," said his lawyer Robert Dougans, "and he has balls."

It was a remark that delighted his 45-year-old client, who was celebrating a landmark English Court of Appeal judgment in his favour on Thursday, April 1, 2010.

"Can I have a T-shirt saying that?" he asked.

A world-renowned and acclaimed science writer and broadcaster with a bonkers hairdo and twinkly eyes, Simon regularly appears at science-meets-comedy events with the comedians Dara O Briain and Marcus Brigstocke. However, although he is known for his wisecracking ebullience, even he can't pretend that the past two years have been fun.

In April 2008, he wrote an article for The Guardian that criticised the claims by some chiropractors that they could successfully treat children and babies for conditions such as asthma, colic and ear infections.

The British Chiropractic Association ("BCA") took immediate exception to Simon Singh's description of these treatments as "bogus" and to his view that there wasn't "a jot of evidence" to support them, but declined to exercise a right of reply. Instead, it alleged that the reputation of chiropractors had been damaged and sued him personally.

Last year, to Simon's dismay, a High Court judge, Mr Justice Eady, came down on the association's side, ruling that Simon's  words could not be defended as "fair comment" because they were an assertion of fact rather than opinion.

"There have been many times that this looked pretty dark," admitted Simon Singh. Even at the start of the process, he knew he was taking on a Goliath: "When the BCA's documents arrived, there were 35 pages attacking me and my article. To read through that is scary - but also, because it's in legalese, incredibly boring."

Others might well have caved in because of the punitive cost of libel cases - indeed, the bill for Somon's initial case and last week's appeal has now reached £200,000.

Fortunately, because he has written several successful books, translated into 25 languages, he could just about afford to defend the case - hence Dougans's reference to his wallet.

"If I lose, I can take the hit," Simon Singh said before the Appeal Court ruling. "It will be painful but I won't be destitute."

And the balls? "I refuse to apologise. If I can defend my writing, then I damn well should."

It is rare for a private individual to take on the English libel law, because it is tilted so far in favour of plaintiffs that so-called libel tourists from around the world are now regularly using our courts to sue - even when the defendants are also from overseas. This is something we should be ashamed of, says Simon Singh.

"We have the most oppressive libel laws in the free world and we export that injustice to the rest of the world," he said.

"People say libel is not a big problem, but what about the number of claims settled out of court that we don't hear about and the articles that are self-censored or that never even get commissioned?

"This is not about celebrity gossip and tittle-tattle. It's about things that affect everyone."

Simon's wife, Anita Anand, is a journalist and understands what is at stake.

"It might have put serious pressure on us otherwise," he said. "At each stage we have sat down and looked at what we might have to do and what it would cost. There are all kinds of possibilities and you have to reassess them at every point."

Among the decisions he made was to turn up to court wearing a "lucky" Cambridge University maths club scarf, stitched together at the end to form a Möbius strip. Whether or not this talismanic accessory played a part in defeating the might of the chiropractic profession, the Court of Appeal came down heavily in Simon Singh's favour.

It ruled that, contrary to Eady's original ruling, Simon Singh could in fact rely on a "fair comment" defence of his article. This judgment will now strengthen the position of others facing libel suits, too.

Its significance was underlined by the fact that the appeal was heard by three of the most heavyweight judges in the U.K.: Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice; Lord Neuberger, the Master of the Rolls; and Lord Justice Sedley. All were present to hand down judgment on Thursday - which was unusually scathing.

The BCA should have taken up The Guardian's offer of a right of reply, they wrote, and courts that forced scientists to prove the truth of their opinions were acting as an "Orwellian ministry of truth".

Instead, "scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than the methods of litigation ... more papers, more discussion, better data and more satisfactory models".

Eady, who has in recent years been instrumental in bringing in more privacy laws, was criticised - "notwithstanding his very great experience" - for treating an issue of opinion "as an issue of verifiable fact".

After hearing the full ruling, Simon's lawyer was jubilant. "From now on," said Dougans, "judges will be able to refer to the ‘Simon Singh paragraph'." Gesturing at his client, he added: "He's become a footnote."

Singh beamed in response. "I always wanted to be a footnote," he said.

Born in Somerset to Sawaran Kaur and Mehnga Singh, Simon is a grammar school boy who went on to study particle physics at Imperial College London and Cambridge. After concluding that his academic colleagues were brighter and more dedicated than he was, he started working at the BBC's science department, producing and directing programmes including Tomorrow's World and Horizon.

A Bafta award-winning programme about a maths problem that he directed in 1996, called Fermat's Last Theorem, inspired a book of the same title - the first of his bestsellers.

His libel case has now brought him out of the realm of science and into the political arena. Among those who joined him on the day of the judgment were a cross-party group of MPs urging reform. All three main parties have promised changes to the libel laws and tens of thousands of members of the public have signed petitions demanding their immediate introduction.

Campaigners - who include such organisations as English PEN, Index on Censorship and Sense about Science - want thorough reforms to include a cheaper but binding tribunal and a stronger public interest defence. They also want plaintiffs to have to prove that damaging assertions are incorrect and that a minimum proportion of the publication of an alleged libel took place in the U.K..

Simon Singh gratefully acknowledges the moral support he has received from many surprising sources; they have "helped me understand I'm not crazy", he said.

"James Randi, a father figure for the rationalist movement, wrote an email saying, ‘Simon, we have got your back covered.' Tom Stoppard [the playwright] emailed out of the blue. And last week we did a mass lobby at parliament and 300 people turned up. People like Michael Frayn [the novelist and playwright] and AC Grayling [the philosopher] came - not to speak but just to give their support."

The "disappointed" British Chiropractic Association is now considering whether to seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court; but, for now, Simon Singh feels satisfied.

"We've had a victory over the meaning of the words I used, which has cost £200,000. And, fortunately, we're not going to have to pay that," he said.

A small cloud passed across his lawyer's face and Singh hastily corrected himself: "Of course, when I say ‘we', I mean ‘I'."

 

[Courtesy: The Sunday Times]

April 4, 2010

read other articles in People