The House of Commons Justice Committee has been told London has become the world leader in law firms perpetrating strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs.
Michelle Stanistreet, the general secretary of the National Union of Journalists, described SLAPPs as “bullyboy tactics” used to intimidate journalists or “tie them up in knots” in order to prevent them publishing damning material.
She said: “A SLAPP is not just defamation. It could be privacy, copyright, or data privacy. The costs are just the tip of the iceberg. It’s the physical, emotional and mental toll [on journalists].”
In March, Prime Minister Boris Johnson spoke out about the “chilling effect” of SLAPPs, which he said were often used to silence journalists, with Justice Secretary Dominic Raab saying, “We will not tolerate Russian oligarchs and other corrupt elites abusing British courts to muzzle those who shine a light on their wrongdoing.”
Stanistreet said reform was “overdue” and she said: “It is a badge of shame that so many journalists around the world are targeted by lawyers based here. It is a jurisdiction of concern.”
‘Inequality of Arms’
At the committee, Labour MP Maria Eagle asked if there was an “inequality of arms,” and Stanistreet replied: “Absolutely. Many journalists are freelancers and are sometimes not fully supported. These have a chilling effect on the broader journalistic community.”Peter Coe, a law professor at the University of Reading, said, “I was talking to an academic yesterday who was subjected to a number of SLAPPs and he said they can’t afford to fight it so they just close it [controversial research] down.”
Rupert Cowper-Coles, a lawyer who has represented many journalists, publishers, and NGOs, told the committee SLAPPs were often brought under data protection law, rather than defamation, pointing out that “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.”
‘Dirty Money’
Cowper-Coles added, “A lot of this litigation is about corruption and dirty money and the law firms don’t fear the consequences.”Catrin Evans QC, a barrister with Matrix Chambers, responded to that point by saying lawyers were “obliged to take cases we don’t agree with.”
Another top barrister, Justin Rushbrooke QC, told the committee: “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.”
Last month the European Commission proposed a new law to protect journalists and activists from SLAPPs, which it said were a “serious threat to democracy and fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression and information.”
The Commission recommended switching the burden of proof so the claimant had to prove the case was “not manifestly unfounded,” and it pointed out Maltese investigative journalist and blogger Daphne Caruana Galizia faced more than 40 lawsuits before her death in a 2017 car bombing.
