Sprott and professor settle cot-death case

By ANGELA GREGORY

Forensic scientist Dr Jim Sprott has dropped a defamation case against an Auckland Medical School associate professor which was triggered by their disagreement about the cause of cot death.

Dr Sprott, a prominent cot-death campaigner, believes toxic gases can be generated in a baby's mattress and that can cause Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.

Since 1994 he had advised parents to wrap baby mattresses in special plastic according to his specifications.

But medical researchers dispute Dr Sprott's theory, considering it unproven and potentially dangerous.

Last year he issued defamation proceedings against Dr Ed Mitchell for comments he made in a New Zealand Herald article about the cot-death debate in advance of a major international conference.

Dr Mitchell, a paediatric specialist, said in the December 1999 article that he had no doubt about Dr Sprott's sincerity, but his views remained open to rigorous scientific debate.

Dr Mitchell had added "and his direct tactics are aimed at preventing that debate", which Dr Sprott alleged was defamatory.

Dr Sprott claimed the words in the direct quote were intended to mean he was unwilling to have his theory scientifically debated.

He also claimed it meant he was an unprofessional scientist and improperly threatened action against critics.

The story had also reported Dr Sprott as threatening to sue anyone who he thought attacked his theory in a manner that defamed him.

Lawyers for Dr Mitchell argued that the case should not proceed because he was only expressing his honest opinion, which is a defence in defamation actions.

But after a hearing on that point last October the Court of Appeal found that although the words were an opinion, it could not rule whether the opinion was honestly held. That would require evidence to be called.

Dr Mitchell yesterday issued a statement through his lawyer, Daniel MacLellan, saying Dr Sprott had decided to discontinue the proceedings.

A statement agreed to by both parties said that, although they disagreed over the cause of cot death, they accepted the genuineness of each other's views.

Dr Mitchell said they had also agreed they would make no further comment about the legal proceedings.