A decision in the Appeal Court last week following a long and frustrating slog by science writer Simon Singh has finally become a victory for common sense and science writers everywhere.

A couple of years ago, writing in The Guardian, Simon suggested that there be a lack of evidence to support claims made by the British Chiropractic Association. The BCA took exception to the article and took Simon to court on some outdated and subjective libel laws. The case rested on the contents of the article, and whether the article expressed opinion or made factual assertions. The initial case, heard last year in the high court, found in favour of the BCA and against Simon. This effectively meant that all science journalistic writing would have to be supported in future by hard evidence of fact, and that expressions of opinion and indeed, fair comment had no place in science reporting.

Simon appealed and the BCA opposed the appeal. Both sides presented detailed evidence based on case study and fact. The appeal judges decided that it was not acceptable for individuals or organisations to run to the courts crying character assassination when any opinion be expressed that differed from their own, as this does not equate with the principles of free expression that are allowed in our society. It also illustrates how scientific evidence can demonstrate what you want it to do when correctly manipulated. The BCA had evidence to support their views but Simon had opposing evidence to support his own views.

The judges conceded that the libel and slander laws currently in place were a minefield to interpret and "dogged by misleading terminology" but decided that honest opinion in journalism must be allowed. After two years and thousands of pounds being spent on litigation - common sense finally prevailed.

It also goes to show how important it is to be sure of your factual information before committing ink to paper. Remember that!

Well done Simon!