A festive surprise from libel lawyers Carter Ruck

Anybody who's seen their buttoned-up boss leading the conga at the office Christmas party knows all too well how character-changing the festive season can be.
 
So it is proving for leading London libel law firm and arch-enemy of Britain's investigative journalists, Carter Ruck, as it switches from shielding clients from prying eyes on Fleet Street to championing the cause of free speech.
 
Since it was founded by Peter Carter-Ruck (below) in the early 1980s, Carter Ruck the firm has attracted hundreds of famous and infamous clients seeking to squash damaging stories (very often in Private Eye), including Sir James Goldsmith and Neil Hamilton.  
 
But the firm's public profile has really soared this year through a series of controversial court actions. Acting for commodities trader Trafigura over reports of toxic waste dumping in Cote D'Ivoire, Carter Ruck secured a "super injunction" preventing all media reporting certain allegations against the company or even mentioning the existence of the gagging order.  

The law firm then provoked outrage by seeking to prevent the Guardian from reporting parliamentary questions on the subject.  (When thousands of Twitterers revealed the allegations anyway, the injunction was lifted).
 
These and other tactics have prompted parliamentary and government enquiries into the issue. Even Justice Secretary Jack Straw has talked of the "chilling effect" of cripplingly expensive libel actions on democracy. One man who would no doubt agree is leading science writer Simon Singh, who recently lost a High Court libel case against the British Chiropractic Association for claiming their methods were "bogus".
 
In this frosty atmosphere a leading Danish radiologist, Henrik Thomsen, has now unsurprisingly refused to speak in England about his concerns over a drug made by GE Healthcare, a subsidiary of General Electric. The company is already suing Thomsen in the high court over comments he made at a conference in Oxford in 2007, which allegedly implied it had suppressed damaging information about the drug's side-effects.

Thomsen told the conference that Omniscan, a contrast agent used to improve the legibility of MRI scans, had caused a potentially fatal condition in some patients with kidney problems. He claimed to have found the condition - nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) - in around 30 patients at Copenhagen University hospital where he worked.

But with GE Healthcare determined to pursue him for defamation, Thomsen has now said: "I am not giving lectures any more in the UK where it seems you can be sued for telling the truth. This is serious for me and my family, serious for patients and serious for society as a whole.

"My lecture in Oxford was about what I experienced over 18 months, and that story can't be changed. We thought we had an excellent drug and it turned out we disabled a lot of patients. The only way to improve treatment for other patients is to share this knowledge."

And who is defending Thomsen's right to express his opinions, reportedly even having written to justice secretary Jack Straw to protest? None other than... Carter Ruck. The case is being handled by Andrew Stephenson, senior partner, who, as The First Post reported in October, advertises on the Carter Ruck website his "considerable experience in advising individuals and corporations in handling intrusive or hostile media interest".

In the case of Henrik Thomsen, however, Stephenson is arguing that his client's presentation at the Oxford conference was covered by 'qualified privilege', which can protect freedom of speech.

He says Thomsen will argue that he had a duty to report his experience at Copenhagen University hospital and his audience of fellow scientists had a legitimate interest in receiving that information.

Late but welcome converts, Scrooge-like, to the cause of free speech? Or simply contributing to both sides of the great libel debate? 2010 will tell.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Since this piece was posted, Simon Singh has written to point out that he has not lost his libel case against the British Chiropractic Association. "It is still ongoing," he says, "has cost me over £100,000 after 18 months and we go to appeal on a preliminary ruling on meaning on February 22, 2010. The trial will not be before the summer and the total bills will then probably come to over £500,000. In light of all of this, I am keen to see a reform of the libel laws so that other writers do not have to go through all of this to defend their ideas." ·