Friday, 31 July 2009

Simon Singh Refused Permission To Appeal

The Court Office today confirmed to me that, in an Order sealed on 30 July 2009, the Court of Appeal has refused Simon Singh's application for permission to appeal (PTA).

Letters were sent to the parties yesterday (but there is a post strike in London).

Simon Singh needed PTA because permission to appeal had been refused at first instance at the preliminary hearing in May.

There are no further details yet, including reasons.

I understand that this refusal may now mean he can make an "oral renewal" before the Court of Appeal.

More information will be provided as it becomes available.


Simon Singh has just over SEVEN days to decide whether to ask for an oral renewal hearing, though the seven days commence on the service of notice of the decision on the parties (not the date it was made or any order was sealed).

(This right is unless the Court of Appeal has held that the application is totally without merit.)

See Rule 52.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules:

"...where the appeal court, without a hearing, refuses permission to appeal, the person seeking permission may request the decision to be reconsidered at a hearing."


TK said...

Do they have to give reasons?

Simon said...

"There are no further details yet, including reasons."

HolfordWatch said...

You had prepared us for this eventuality. Nonetheless, I look forward to learning what an "oral renewal" is [/puzzled /bemused]

joe list said...

Outragous. it is difficult not to be angered by this continued stubborness.


And if he does this "oral renewal", what outcomes of this action are possible?

Dr Aust said...

Presumably they either grant permission to appeal, or they turn him down. In the latter case, can he apply for leave to appeal to the House of Lords? I have commented on this on my blog - see Update No 2 - though as a non-lawyer I am guessing about the legal stuff.

..or can the Court of Appeal definitively "block" any further appeal to the Lords or the European Court of Hunman Rights?

I find it difficult to believe that an application to reconsider Sir David E's ruling on meaning could be deemed "totally without merit". The most obviously arguable thing would seem to me to be whether the entire article qualifies the "definitive meaning" Sir David ascribed to "happily promotes... bogus..."

- though little about the English law of libel and its sequelae seems to follow principles comprehensible to us non-lawyers. Which is surely part of the problem.


I have no ideas about your House of Lords, but as I know, no legal body can "block" the appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. The only requirement for such appeal is that at first the appellant must use all possible ways of the legal defence, which are in his country. The appeal to European Court can be done independently of context of the decision of a state court and decision of the bodies of judicial review. However European Court can't annul or correct the decision of the state court or to change (or to recommend the changes) the state laws. Nevertheless European Court can check and find the possible breaches of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the state court's actions. And if European Court found such breaches, it can requires the financial compensation for material injuries and moral harm and indemnification of legal expenses in favour of the injured person.
It is what I know about it. And if I told a nonsense (because I incompetent person in laws, of course), I hope that our legists (Jack? Please...) will correct my reasonings.

TK said...

@Simon - yes, I read that but JoK wrote that there were no further details YET, including reasons - which implies that there might be some at a later date. I was asking if they have to give them at all.

Kimpatsu said...

I guess we'll be going to the ECHR to settle this mess, then.

Jack of Kent said...

@TK Yes, there will be reasons, though I have not seen them yet and do not know what they are.

Chris K said...

Disappointing but not unexpected.

Alex said...

"In the latter case, can he apply for leave to appeal to the House of Lords?"

No, because the House of Lords has no judicial functions anymore. We have a Supreme Court now!

So I guess the question is "can he apply for leave to appeal to the new Supreme Court?"

ghrasko said...

I am totally illiterate in legal things and maybe I am totally wrong but…

So far the direction was that Simon had not meant that the chiropractors (or the society) deliberately mislead the patients. Now if I understand correctly the only way to win is to prove that they did deliberately mislead people. I think the medical scientific consensus is that chiropractic can not cure the listed conditions. I also think that a healer (or doctor) should know the scientific consensus. We might safely assume that they know about it. In fact they do not deny it, but they simply ignore it, or do not accept it. Now the question is that if one is not accepting a scientific consensus without good reasons and he promotes the treatment as if there would not been a consensus, is he deliberately deceiving the patients or not? I think he is.

I guess I did not tell anything new, but so far I felt we were “politically correct” too much overstating that those people are not deceiving, but they are deceived themselves. I think there are quite good arguments to show that the chiropractors do deceive their patients. Their disbelief in science does not protect them marking as charlatans.


okjhum said...

Agree. It now seems possible to show that the BCA indeed do mislead their patients deliberately.