A RETIRED Scottish academic last night claimed victory in his
five-year crusade against the manufacturers of the world's best-selling
sleeping pill, Halcion.
Professor Ian Oswald, emeritus professor of psychiatry at Edinburgh
University, was awarded #50,000 from the US firm, Upjohn, for the damage
it caused to his reputation, but was also told by the High Court in
London to pay #25,000 in counter libel damages to the company.
In the same ruling, the BBC was ordered to pay #60,000 in damages to
Upjohn, and now faces a legal bill estimated at #1.5m. The corporation
was last night considering an appeal against the judgment, made in
respect of a 1991 Panorama programme, The Halcion Nightmare.
Professor Oswald, whose legal costs of up to #2m will be paid by the
Medical Defence Union, could eventually be out of pocket by a net
#50,000, since the court found he should also pay #75,000 damages to an
Upjohn executive, Dr Royston Drucker, whom he accused of lying to the US
Food and Drug Administration.
However, his solicitor, Mr David Hooper, said last night that it was
hoped the BBC would meet this bill, because it related to a programme
(Panorama) in which his client had been only a contributor.
He added: ''The real issue is between Upjohn and Professor Oswald and
in that he has been successful. He was awarded twice what Upjohn was
awarded against him. His reputation has been vindicated.''
Outside the court, the professor said: ''I am glad these proceedings
are over. They should never have been brought.''
He chose to retire in 1989, when he was 60, to devote his time to
studying Upjohn's secret documents. Before that, he had spent 30 years
researching drugs, including a decade studying Halcion.
The High Court case centred on a drug which was banned in the UK three
years ago, after the Department of Health ruled that its potential
side-effects outweighed the benefits it could bring to patients.
Critics of Halcion say it can cause depression, anxiety, short-term
memory loss and violent behaviour. Upjohn insists that it is safe when
taken as directed.
In yesterday's 295-page ruling, the Judge, Sir Anthony May, said the
BBC and Professor Oswald were wrong to accuse Upjohn of deliberately
misleading regulatory bodies about possible side-effects of the drug.
''The seriousness of the libels ... is ... obvious and great,'' he said.
But while the company's reports on Halcion ''were not made
intentionally and dishonestly'', they did include serious errors, so the
amount of damages would be lowered, said the Judge.
He accepted that the company had suffered in reputation, but the
amount of damages awarded to the company against Professor Oswald was
affected by the ''tiny'' extent of the publication of his views within
the UK, through an article in the New York Times.
An equivalent claim against the newspaper in the US would not have
been viable under American law.
However, the extent of the publication by the BBC, on a Panorama
watched by almost four million viewers, was wide.
In finding that Upjohn had defamed Mr Oswald in its press releases,
the Judge said that for it to accuse him ''of being biased for improper
motive was reckless''.
He added: ''It was a personal attack, not a scientific defence (of
Halcion). Upjohn knew perfectly well that the case that he was making
was one which had to be considered seriously.''
The seriousness of the libel spoke for itself. It had called into
question his professional and academic integrity upon a subject which
was of central importance to the career in which he made his reputation,
and there was substantial circulation of the company's comments in the
Scotsman, which the Judge described as ''Edinburgh's daily newspaper''.
After the verdict, Mr Ley Smith, president and chief operating officer
of Upjohn, said: ''We are very pleased with the verdict. It's a
vindication for the company and its employees.''
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article