tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post6605183446560288976..comments2022-08-11T19:39:04.705+01:00Comments on LawClanger: Libel and Science: Not Happy BedfellowsSimon Bradshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14233721281522686341noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-76128134555807741952009-06-20T13:20:37.802+01:002009-06-20T13:20:37.802+01:00Oddly, the one thing I wouldn't seek to change...Oddly, the one thing I wouldn't seek to change about UK libel law is the burden of proof. My reasoning is simple: you can't, logically, prove a negative, and if the burden of proof is reversed the plaintiff has to prove that what was published is not true.<br /><br />I'd like to see nearly everything else changed, though. Fact should be an absolute defence, and that should include scientific fact by the standards of the time. The size of the "reputation" should have no impact on the size of the libel (you can't quantify reputation), nor should the nature of the libel (I have no time for this business where Eady LJ arbitrarily determined that Singh had accused the BCA of dishonesty; I don't mind his making that determination, I just don't see that it should have anything to do with the libel).<br /><br />And, perhaps above all, the *damages* should be drastically scaled down; I'd submit that the size of the awards has a lot to do with the scale of libel costs in the UK. Any amount of embarrassment, yes, recantations in newspapers or apologies on TV in prominence and proportion to the libel, yes, but not cash.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com