MMR Doc
drops libel case versus
Channel Four
Press
Gazette (UK)
By PA
Mediapoint
Tuesday, 23 January 2007
Dr Andrew Wakefield,
whose research linked the triple MMR vaccine with
autism and bowel disease, has dropped his defamation
case against Channel 4.
He issued
proceedings against Channel 4, Twenty Twenty
Productions and journalist Brian Deer over a
programme in the Dispatches series entitled "MMR
[What They Didn't Tell You]" which was broadcast
on November 18, 2004.
But Dr Wakefield,
who was being funded by the Medical Protection
Society, discontinued the case at the start of this
year, just after the end of the Christmas and New
Year holiday period.
Kevin Sutcliffe,
deputy head of news and current affairs at Channel 4,
said: "Brian Deer's film was a powerful piece of
investigative journalism which tackled a subject of
enormous public importance.
"Dr Wakefield's
decision to discontinue the libel proceedings is a
complete vindication for both the Dispatches
investigation and Brian Deer's dogged
journalism."
Solicitor Amali de
Silva, who led the team at law firm Wiggin LLP which
represented Channel 4, said: "Channel 4 has
always stood by the programme and its reporter, Brian
Deer.
"As a result,
the action was robustly defended from the outset and
if Dr Wakefield had not decided to drop the action,
Channel 4 and Wiggin fully intended to defend truth
of the programme at trial."
Prash Naik, Channel
4's deputy head of legal and compliance, said:
"Our decision to fight on with the action rather
than capitulate to Dr Wakefield's demands to stay the
proceedings is a credit to our legal team's astute
tactical skills."
It is understood
that no reason was given for the decision to drop the
case. But it means that Dr Wakefield and the Medical
Protection Society, which was funding his action,
will be liable for the costs run up by Channel 4,
Twenty Twenty Productions and Mr Deer since the
proceedings started early last year.
Dr Wakefield had
claimed that the programme meant that he had spread
fear that the MMR vaccine might lead to autism, and
had acted dishonestly and for mercenary motives.
The case has already
had three hearings in court. In October 2005, Dr
Wakefield applied to have the proceedings stayed
until the end of proceedings before the General
Medical Council, the doctors' disciplinary body.
That application -
which would have meant that the case would probably
not have come to court before late this year - was
rejected by Mr Justice Eady, who said in a decision
in November 2005 that the defendants had the right to
have the case heard quickly, and that a delay would
have a serious effect on Mr Deer's right to freedom
of expression.
There were two
further hearings in November this year, one involving
disclosure of files relating to Dr Wakefield's own
patients, and the other concerning disclosure of
documents which were sent to Dr Wakefield in
connection with the GMC proceedings.
In both cases Dr
Wakefield was ordered to disclose the documents to
the defendants, although there were also provisions
to ensure that the patients' privacy and the
confidentiality of medical records were protected.
The
case could have proved extremely expensive had it
gone to trial, because of the complexity of the
issues surrounding the MMR vaccine, and because it
would also have involved a number of expert
witnesses.
Press Gazette
