In a significant legal victory, Dr. Zoë Harcombe and Dr. Malcolm Kendrick won the first round of their libel case against The Mail on Sunday. Justice Matthew Nicklin’s High Court ruling dismissed the tabloid’s public interest defense, marking a critical moment in what has been described as “the most significant piece of defamation litigation” in recent years.
This case exposes how journalists cover scientific issues and discredit those who challenge the official narrative.
The case stems from a series of articles published by the tabloid in March 2019. These articles labeled Harcombe and Kendrick as “statin deniers” and accused them of spreading “deadly propaganda” about cholesterol-lowering drugs. They were part of the newspaper’s “Fight Fake Health News” campaign. They were heavily critical of the doctors’ public stance against the widespread use of statins, which they argue are not as beneficial as widely claimed.
Background on the Case
For years, Dr. Kendrick, a general practitioner, and Dr. Harcombe, a nutritional scientist, have challenged the mainstream medical consensus on the role of saturated fats and cholesterol in heart disease. Their views clash with established medical opinions that advocate for the use of statins to lower cholesterol and reduce heart disease risk.
In response to the articles, which they claim caused serious harm to their reputations, Kendrick and Harcombe sought legal advice in March 2019 and filed a libel lawsuit in February 2020. The articles accused them of endangering public health and suggested their views could lead to a catastrophe.
Justice Nicklin’s judgment was scathing in its critique of the tabloid’s handling of the articles. He noted that the articles “seriously misled readers” and that the journalist, Barney Calman, misrepresented important facts. The judge highlighted the irony of the situation, stating that while the doctors were accused of spreading misinformation, it was the tabloid that had misled its readers.
The judgment also criticized the handling of the right-to-reply process, describing it as “hollow and superficial.” The failure to adequately consider Harcombe and Kendrick’s responses was deemed a significant omission, depriving them of a fair opportunity to address the allegations made against them.
Following the ruling, both doctors expressed their satisfaction with the outcome. Dr. Harcombe stated, “I am grateful to the Judge for his detailed and careful analysis of all of the facts and pleased that he has recognized the enormity and unfairness of the public attack on our integrity.” Dr. Kendrick echoed these sentiments, emphasizing that the judgment clearly outlined how unfairly the publishers had treated them.
The case will now proceed to the next phase, where further determinations regarding liability and potential damages will be addressed if the parties do not resolve beforehand. This ruling sets a significant precedent for future defamation cases, particularly those involving scientific debate and public health issues.
