Moments ago, it was announced via Simon Singh's lawyers that... well, here's what they said:

The BCA today served a Notice of Discontinuance bringing to an end its ill-fated libel claim against Dr Simon Singh arising out of criticisms he made of its promotion of treatments for childhood ailments.

Dr Singh's predicament as the sole defendant in an action brought in respect of a comment piece in the Guardian newspaper (to which the BCA never directed any complaint) was seen as a rallying point for those concerned about the abuse of UK libel laws in connection with scientific debate.

Interest intensified when Eady J ruled that his words were not comment and that in order to defend himself he would have to prove the objective truth of what he wrote.

Earlier this month the Court of Appeal overturned that ruling and this has lead the BCA to abandon its claim.

William McCormick QC acted for Dr Singh instructed by Robert Dougans of Bryan Cave LLP.

I've approached the BCA for comment, and my prediction (the prediction of many to be fair) is that they will basically throw a bit of a snark at either their lawyers, the justice system, or both. They will bitch about how unfair the Guardian were, and they will insist they acted on the best advice of their lawyers who, let's be generous about this, probably couldn't have expected Simon Singh to go all kamikaze and take them on.

There are a number of questions and comments worth putting here. The first is whether Simon Singh will pursue them for costs. It must be tempted, and doing so will keep this high profile case running longer, giving the libel reform campaign momentum into the next parliament. This is necessary, because while Simon's appeal victor will make it slightly easier to defend similar cases in the future, it doesn't really fix the problems in libel law.

The second is what the BCA's members should or might do. Because let's face it, the BCA's actions have been horrendously detrimental to the profession as a whole, as I outlined in the Guardian last month.

Serious questions must be asked by their members about how such a 'misconceived' decision was taken in the first place. It's not just a question of the PR disaster and financial drain caused; although of course those are problematic.

No, the deeper issue is what a professional body was doing even contemplating legal action in the first place. I don't see that it's the job of the BCA to gamble members' money on crusades against their critics; and I know that a lot of chiropractors feel the same way. Whatever I think about elements of the profession, these are generally decent, hard-working people handing over thousands of pounds to an organization which has chosen to spend that money trashing defending its own reputation rather than working in the best interests of its members.

As a third and final point, it's also worth pointing out that this case is, like Trafigura, remarkable for having opened up a massive second front on the internet, an extensive grass-roots campaign spanning the globe, linking information and mobilizing activists to put an extraordinary amount of pressure on the Chiropractic profession. I'm reminded of Charlie Croker in the Italian Job:

"You'll be making a grave error if you kill us. There are a quarter of a million Italians in Britain and they'll be made to suffer. Every restaurant, cafe, ice-cream parlor, gambling den and nightclub in London, Liverpool and Glasgow will be smashed."

Rightly or wrongly, people bringing these cases need to think very, very carefully about repercussions that extend far beyond the court system.

Anyway, just a quick brain-storming reaction, I'll look at this more later.

Update:

The BCA have issued a statement.

BCA V SIMON SINGH - PRESS STATEMENT – 15th APRIL 2010

Having carefully considered its position in the light of the judgment of the Court of Appeal (1st April 2010), the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) has decided to discontinue its libel action against Simon Singh.

As previously made clear, the BCA brought the claim because it considered that Simon Singh had made a serious allegation against its reputation, namely, that the BCA promoted treatments that it knew to be “bogus”. The Honourable Mr Justice Eady, the UK's most experienced defamation judge, agreed with the BCA’s interpretation of the article and ruled that it made a serious factual allegation of dishonesty.

The Court of Appeal, in its recent judgment, has taken a very different view of the article. On its interpretation, the article did not make any factual allegation against the BCA at all; it was no more than an expression of ‘honest opinion’ by Simon Singh. While it still considers that the article was defamatory of the BCA, the decision provides Dr Singh with a defence such that the BCA has taken the view that it should withdraw to avoid further legal costs being incurred by either side.

As those who have followed the publicity surrounding this case will know, Simon Singh has said publicly that he had never intended to suggest that the BCA had been dishonest. The BCA accepts this statement, which goes some way to vindicating its position.

The BCA takes seriously its duty and responsibilities to members and to chiropractic patients.

The BCA has considered seeking leave to take this matter to the Supreme Court and has been advised there are strong grounds for appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment. However, while it was right to bring this claim at the outset, the BCA now feels that the time is right for the matter to draw to a close.

A couple of comments in response to that. The first is that this is not a statement from anyone at the BCA, but was e-mailed to me from Publicasity. Over the course of the case, the BCA's relationship with the media has changed to the extent that now nobody from the BCA will talk about any of it, as far as I can tell. This raises the question, will the powers-that-be in the BCA issue a direct statement to their long-suffering members, or will chiropractors too be fobbed off by copy from a PR firm?

I said earlier today that the statement would be snarky, and indeed it was. The lavish praise heaped on the (already-controversial) Justice Eady combined with the apparent bewilderment at the Appeal Court's later decision and use of 'scare quotes' speaks volumes about the BCA's dim view of how the cases proceeded.

Thirdly, it's amusing to see that the BCA now apparently accept Simon Singh's claim that he was not accusing them of dishonestly. Had they accepted this eighteen months ago, they might have saved themselves - and the chiropractic profession - an awful lot of trouble.

And finally, I have to comment on the claims that the BCA's position has somehow been vindicated. The BCA were attacked by Singh because they promoted bogus medical treatment to children. That's a particularly vile thing to do, whether it's because of dishonesty or sheer delusion on the part of the BCA. Nothing that has been said by Simon Singh vindicates any part of the behaviour of this organization. They were, and remain, a disgrace.