Just after I clicked "submit" on my previous article on the Singh vs. BCA affair, I discovered via @JackOfKent that the British Chiropractic Association have released a more, er, in-depth statement on the latest ruling. You can get it at their website, or cached here for safe-keeping. I'll reproduce the text below (since this is a press release and I am apparently a sort of press now I feel this is fair), then comment.

Dr. Simon Singh has been granted permission to appeal against the decision of Mr. Justice Eady. As the Claimant is not permitted to be represented in a hearing of this nature, the Judge of the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Laws, did not have the benefit of being able to consider all the issues, nor indeed, has he heard any argument from the BCA.

Dr. Singh has used this case as a platform to argue that science writers should be immune from the law of libel and be free to write what they please. Ever since the Eady decision of 7th May 2009, he has engaged in a high profile media campaign to assert that the BCA's action is a restriction of the freedom of speech. It is nothing of the sort.

The BCA supports and would never seek to stifle legitimate open scientific debate. However, this action is actually a simple libel claim based on the fact that the BCA was maliciously attacked by Dr. Singh in the Guardian newspaper. When given the opportunity to retract his words and apologise, Dr. Singh refused. This claim has been brought to restore the good reputation of the BCA and that of its members.

Dr. Singh may now put his case before a full Court of Appeal. Here the BCA will, for the first time, have the opportunity to present its case. The BCA remains confident that once in possession of all the facts the presiding judges will refuse the Appeal.

There are several points in this bad-tempered little piece that are worth raising.

1) As Jack of Kent notes, the BCA have for the first time directly accused Simon Singh of malice, a defamatory allegation that, if intended rather than being a sloppy error, would suggest a possible new line of attack in the case.

2) The BCA state that "This claim has been brought to restore the good reputation of the BCA and that of its members." Given that this claim has resulted in a mass attack on the profession, a high profile campaign to keep libel laws out of science, hundreds of complaints to regulators against individual chiropractors and widespread ridicule of the attempts of the BCA to provide evidence for the effectiveness of their treatments, how exactly is that going chaps?

3) It is false to claim that Justice Laws has not heard any argument from the BCA - he of course had access to the details of the original rulings which were being appealed. It is absurd to suggest that the Court of Appeal is the first opportunity for the BCA to present its case. I'm also not convinced that the BCA weren't permitted to be represented at this hearing, but I await the comment of more qualified writers than me to clarify this point.

4) Continuing from that point, the BCA repeatedly allude to additional evidence that 'wasn't considered', "once in possession of all the facts," "did not have the benefit of being able to consider all the issues." This raises the question: what new facts are there, and why didn't you present them in your original case? It sounds suspiciously like appealing to 'stuff you don't know so you can't criticize it.'

5) The suggestion that Singh's camp refused to compromise with the BCA is disingenuous at the very least. The Guardian offered the BCA a 500-word article in which they could exercise the right to reply, along with a comment in the corrections and clarifications column. The BCA refused the Guardian's offer, and made it clear they were coming after Singh himself.

6) The suggestion that "Dr. Singh has used this case as a platform to argue that science writers should be immune from the law of libel and be free to write what they please" is simply nonsense. The Sense About Science campaign is very clearly focused on a campaign to keep libel laws out of scientific debates and disagreements. Their argument was that the BCA should be able to defend a challenge to the credibility of their science by presenting an argument of their own. As noted above, the BCA refused the offer of the Guardian to facilitate this, preferring instead to try and settle a scientific debate in the libel courts. Given the poor quality of their arguments, this is perhaps unsurprising.

In short it's a very sloppy statement packed with misrepresentations which some have already suggested is legally illiterate. I'm not qualified to comment on the legal aspects, but hopefully Jack of Kent will expand on his analysis soon.

Update:

The BCA have altered their press release (HT: @JackOfKent), to remove "maliciously", presumably having realised the implications. The phrase:

However, this action is actually a simple libel claim based on the fact that the BCA was maliciously attacked by Dr. Singh in the Guardian newspaper.

Has been altered to read:

However, this action is a simple claim based on the fact that the BCA was libelled wby Dr. Singh in the Guardian newspaper.

But the original press release is still available if you know the URL, and of course now out in the wild. By making such a strong allegation of malice against Singh, have they made a critical error? And will they deal with the five other problems with their release outlined here?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Follow me on Twitter: @mjrobbins