On 15th October, in the bowels of Westminster Hall, the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition met with campaigners, lawyers, lobbyists and reporters in a cloistered side-chamber – known as the
IPU Room – to make the case for a structured response to strategic defamation litigation.
Formerly known as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), this
mechanism is not as well-known as it should be – precisely because it is so effective in
leveraging legal intimidation to restrict public, free expression and inquiry. The UK Anti-
SLAPP Coalition – an informal working group comprising freedom of expression,
whistleblowing, and anti-corruption bodies – seeks to redress the imbalance, by researching,
monitoring and highlighting the damage created by SLAPP cases.
Who can be targeted?
According to the Anti-SLAPP Coalition, SLAPPs are often brought by “the powerful and
wealthy,” to prevent the publication of unfavourable information – or encourage its removal
from the public domain. Such threats can be levied against almost anyone; be it academics,
journalists, whistleblowers, sexual abuse victims, environmental defenders, newspapers,
and so on.
The Anti-SLAPP Coalition’s brochure, which peppered the tables of Westminster Hall’s IPU
Room, acknowledges that few SLAPPs “actually reach a full trial,” since they often “lack
legal merit.” But this is not given as reason to accept the litigation. Even before a SLAPP has
hit the courts, it can achieve its aim – which is to wrestle defendants into submission with the
associated legal fees and psychological distress of a drawn-out battle.
For these reasons, SLAPPs are seen by the Coalition as “an abuse of the litigation process,”
and must be countered in the name of democracy and public interest. Readers need only
cast their minds to scandals and coverups such as those surrounding Jimmy Saville, the
Post Office’s Horizon software, or Grenfell’s cladding, to appreciate why.
The UK as a jurisdiction of concern
The United Kingdom is particularly exposed to litigation of the SLAPPs nature – and it is
borne out in the figures. In the 2024 World Press Freedom Index, published by Reporters
Without Borders (RSF) – a sponsor of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition’s 15th October lobby –
the UK is ranked 23rd out of 180 countries. For some time, anti-SLAPP laws have been
enjoyed by 34 states in the United States; three regions of Canada; and in the Australian
Capital Territory.
In a 2022 report conducted by the Foreign Policy Centre (FPC) – another of the event’s
sponsors, along with the APPG on Anti-Corruption & Responsible Tax – the UK was found to
be an especially “claimant friendly” environment, where libel and defamation litigation lean in
favour of those suing. To the same effect, the Anti-SLAPP Coalition argues: “The role
London plays as a global hub for the super wealthy appears to have compounded the
SLAPPs problem.”
The wider continental blocs of which the UK is still a member, however, are racing ahead –
and cracking down on SLAPP-like litigation. In April 2024, the Council of Europe Committee
of Ministers approved a recommendation which lays out a set of minimum standards for
member states to tackle SLAPPs. It provides robust principles, a framework to identify
SLAPPs, and encourages non-EU member states to build their own protections.
Unfortunately, the recommendation is not legally binding in the same way the new and
comparable EU Directive – due to be transposed into national law on May 2026 – will be for
member states, the Anti-SLAPP Coalition points out. Of course, the UK surrendered its
obligation to observe such directives on 31 January 2020.
Recourse for SLAPP victims
Sadly there are currently no universal statutory protections to counter SLAPPs in UK law.
The Anti-SLAPP Coalition notes that “while limited provisions to protect reporting on
economic crime were included in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act
(ECCTA), which received Royal Assent in November 2023, these are yet to come into force
and would not protect everyone who speaks out in the public interest.” Indeed, some of the
highest-profile cases – surfaced in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, for the
purposes of manipulating discourse on the war – are not covered by these measures.
In May 2024, a reformative anti-‘SLAPPs Bill’ – brought forward by Labour MP, Wayne David
– passed the committee stage in the House of Commons. Just two weeks later it fell apart
because of the General Election and the dissolution of Parliament. In July, The Guardian
reported that Labour was delaying on all “proposals to tackle spurious lawsuits brought by
oligarchs and others aimed at intimidating journalists, academics and campaigners.”
Frederick Ponsonby, a Labour justice minister in the House of Lords, said: “We support the
principle behind the [anti-SLAPPs] Bill and we do believe there are outstanding questions
which need to be properly balanced to prevent the abuse of the process of SLAPPs, but also
we need to protect access to justice for legitimate claims.” And so, the campaign rages on.
A roadmap for reform
Due to the continued lobbying of the Anti-SLAPP Coalition, plans for reform remain
underway.
Certainly, the latest anti-‘SLAPPs Bill’ is imperfect, and requires textual amendments. This is
recognised by the Coalition, as well as media lawyer, Hugo Mason, who in March labelled it
“deeply flawed” and called for pause: “[The anti-SLAPPs Bill] I fear is being rushed through
in response to a mere handful of cases. These few bad apples do not justify setting fire to
the orchard.” What Mason overlooks is that the few SLAPPs cases which do surface into the
public eye are merely the tip of the iceberg – and are hardly representative of their true
number.
The Anti-SLAPP Coalition, for its part, argues the solution must go beyond legislative and
regulatory reform. It is about instigating cultural change, too. Its brochure touts a ‘Model UK
Anti-SLAPP Law’ – first presented in November 2022 – as the most “meaningful and robust”
blueprint for a structured response: “The amendments made to the draft SLAPPs Bill
highlighted similar, pre-existing flaws in the ECCTA. As we await their implementation into
civil law procedures, the introduction of a new standalone anti-SLAPP law, superseding
these flawed provisions, would relieve concerns in this area and create certainty as to the
UK’s course to address this issue.”
Key features of the Model UK Anti-SLAPP Law include a filter mechanism that empowers
courts to swiftly dispose of SLAPPS; penalties that are sufficient to deter their use; and
protective measures for victims, such as cost protection and safeguards.
Onward mission statement
As individuals, reporters, or even victims of SLAPPs, the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition’s 15th
October event invites us to lobby MPs, push the issue into public spaces, and, above all
else, campaign for a standalone anti-SLAPP law with universal protection for speech.
The note the Coalition departed on before it cleared that cribbed room off Westminster Hall
was an immutable truth: “Expression is only free when it is free for everyone.”
Comments