Judges in England and Wales are to be given more power to throw out lawsuits which allegedly help wealthy and powerful individuals and corporations gag the media.
In March 2022, the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson spoke out about the “chilling effect” of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), which he said were being used to stop journalists or campaigners from exposing wrongdoing.
The then Justice Secretary Dominic Raab said, “We will not tolerate Russian oligarchs and other corrupt elites abusing British courts to muzzle those who shine a light on their wrongdoing.”
Legislation Will Define a SLAPP for First Time
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said the legislation would, for the first time, define the characteristics of a SLAPP.- An attempt to stifle the recipient’s freedom of speech.
- Behaviour intended to cause distress or expense to the recipient.
- The recipient’s story is in the public interest when it comes to combating economic crime.
He said, “These measures will protect the values of freedom of speech that underpin our democracy and help better protect reporters who are shining a light on their crimes.”
The new early dismissal mechanism will put the onus of proof on the complainant to prove it has legal merit.
The announcement is expected to be welcomed by the National Union of Journalists (NUJ).
The MoJ said they also planned to introduce a cap on the legal costs associated with SLAPPs to prevent them from being “financially ruinous.”
Tugendhat: ‘Victory for Truth and Justice’
Security Minister Tom Tugendhat said: “These new measures are a victory for truth and justice, and a blow to those who try and export their corruption to the UK.“They will help expose wrongdoing and bring an end to spurious lawsuits from those who seek to suppress our freedom of speech,” he added.
Rupert Cowper-Coles, a lawyer who has represented many journalists, publishers, and NGOs, told the justice committee last year SLAPPs were often brought under data protection law, rather than defamation, pointing out “there is no public interest defence for data protection breaches.”
He said: “There are globally wealthy people around the world who are subject to sanctions or are fugitives from U.S. justice who are still very easily able to access legal representation in London and pay for lawyers to threaten defamation claims in this jurisdiction. People whose frauds are well documented in the Department of Justice or are fleeing from fraud and hiding in China are still able to hire reputation lawyers to threaten booksellers, to threaten journalists.”
But another top barrister, Justin Rushbrooke, KC, told the same committee there was a danger of tilting the balance too far in favour of journalists.
Rushbrooke said: “North American libel laws, because of the First Amendment, prioritise irresponsible journalism over truth and the right to reputation and that’s not a balancing act I’d like to see in this country.”
Several Russian oligarchs have used British courts to silence critics.
Roman Abramovich sued for defamation after author Catherine Belton, in her book Putin’s People, claimed he purchased Chelsea football club in 2003 on the orders of the Russian president.
