On Sunday night, 1,500 people gathered at one of the West End’s largest theatres – not because they enjoy camp revivals of seventies disco classics, but because they care about democracy and scientific freedom. The Palace Theatre, Shaftesbury Avenue, is currently the venue for Priscilla, Queen of the Desert. So when Marcus Brigstocke came up to the microphone to explain that no-one was going to see Jason Donovan that night, I half-expected most of the audience to get up in disgust. But they just whooped all the louder. This huge audience – which came together only a few days after the Big Libel Gig was advertised online – is merely the tip of a much greater iceberg of more than 40,000 supporters for the cause of libel reform. They have already persuaded more MPs to sign up to an Early Day Motion on this than on any other issue this year. And they may be about to see meaningful legal reform – if Labour can hold its nerve in the face of mounting resistance from the legal profession.
This huge public campaign was kick-started by a single, absurd, case, in which the science writer Simon Singh was sued by the British Chiropractic Association for referring to ‘bogus’ claims made by the BCA for the efficacy of chiropractic as a treatment for childhood asthma and other ailments. As Singh argued last night – before the entire audience joined in a ‘Simon Singh song’, led by Ariane Sherine of atheist bus fame – science depends on the robust exchange of evidence-based opinions. That is how we advance our knowledge of the world. Moreover, Singh’s comments are backed up by the science, whereas the BCA’s lawsuit is not.
A democratic approach to ideas and information should be part of New Labour’s backbone. The expenses scandal was painful to everyone in parliament, but – unlike the Conservatives – Labour can at least take the credit for the Freedom of Information legislation which brought the truth to light. Libel reform sits within the process of constitutional renewal which is now underway.
To his credit, Jack Straw has listened to the complaints against libel law, and has already introduced one major change, capping the level of ‘success fees’ charged by claimant lawyers at 10%. This means that unsuccessful defendants in libel cases will no longer be crippled by the costs of losing a case (although they may still be maimed).
However, the costs are only part of the problem; and the Justice Secretary has also convened a working group on libel reform, due to report privately to him later this week. As a member of the group, I can’t say anything about our deliberations. However, the membership of the group is a matter of public record, and you will see that a number of claimant lawyers were also included. So it may come as no surprise to hear that the recommended reforms are likely to be limited. These are the same lawyers who last week wrote to Straw threatening to bring a judicial review of his decision to cap success fees.
This tired legal band cannot continue to play the same old tunes in the face of this iceberg. Libel law as we know it is on the cusp of major change. If it doesn’t alter its course, the law will simply crack under the pressure of inequity and injustice, leading to a profound loss of public confidence in our legal system.
The government may need to reopen its consultation on costs if the lawyers are successful in their case for a judicial review (this is, after all, what they’re good at). However, it should not be deflected from implementing the other most important change: a strong public interest defence, which will allow the publication of controversial material which is in the public interest, so long as whoever has published it has done so in good faith and has followed any relevant professional codes or standards. This will help the courts to distinguish between genuine whistleblowing in a peer-reviewed journal or NGO report and mere celebrity tittle-tattle, leading to a greater degree of public information on matters of genuine importance, and a more responsible attitude among the powerful. The law should not be used to buy people’s silence; it is there to allow us to speak out.
Photo: Stewf 2006
What an idiot ‘not a jot’ – listened too hard to that old chiropractic bigot Ernst and this is unwinnable since ‘not a jot’ is easily contested as the BCA know.
Simon should have stuck to ‘not evidence based’
“Science depends on the robust exchange of evidence-based opinions.”
This line of ‘defence’ seems to be coming to the fore increasingly and should not be accepted without some challenge/clarification.
If we take ‘robust’ to mean ‘sturdy and strong, forthright even’ it all sounds fine and dandy. ‘Robust’, though, does not encompass hyperbole, spin or colourful language aimed to catch the eye. As a journalist shifts from justified claim to unjustified claim, that is not ‘robust’ that is a either a mistake, the result of ignorance or a calculated tactic of invoking journalistic authority without sufficient evidence. At this point, if it is reached, science journalism has forsaken science in favour of journalism.
Which pieces of scientific evidence supported the accusation of ‘bogus’ claims? If there scientific evidence, why was the word removed when the article was reissued by Mr Singh’s friends? Why not just highlight the evidence?