Content area
Full text
(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.)
While defamation law is centrally concerned with protecting reputation, English judges have sought, for nearly two decades, to ensure that this branch of tort more adequately protects free expression. The House of Lords made apparent its increasing concern with free expression in Derbyshire County Council v. Times Newspapers Ltd. [1993] A.C. 534 by holding that local authorities could not sue to vindicate their "governing reputation". In Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd. [2001] 2 A.C. 127, their Lordships expanded the defence of qualified privilege (to embrace responsible misreporting of facts on matters of political significance). In taking this step, they sought to promote the public interest in open and informed political debate and to ensure that domestic law meets the requirements of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In British Chiropractic Association v. Singh [2010] EWCA 350, the Court of Appeal has underscored the importance of free expression on matters of public concern by placing an expansive gloss on the defence of fair comment.
The claim in this case arose when Singh, a scientist, published an article in the Guardian's "Comment and Debate" section based on "available epidemiological evidence" in which he was critical of chiropractors. He described them as possessing "some quite wacky ideas". He also stated that some of those in this group "argue that they can cure anything" and described the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) as a body that "happily promotes bogus treatments". Having declined the Guardian's offer to publish...