Media lawfare and legislation against SLAPPs

This media law and ethics guide first published and released 22^nd April 2024.

-o-

Update 24th April 2025.

Government says no to SLAPPs reform

By Professor Tim Crook

When in opposition the Labour Party promised to advance legislation to tackle ‘Litigation against public participation’ primarily in the civil arena of libel law.  In the last edition of The Journal Hamish Monk covered a Parliamentary event promoting these reforms.

Shortly afterwards Labour, now in Government, did a U-turn and said no.

Justice minister Heidi Alexander praised the previous Conservative government for introducing a limited anti-SLAPP measure in the 2023 Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act.

But she cited what she called ‘unresolved issues’ with proposals for more focused and all-encompassing legislation which could check the abuses of oppressive media lawfare and at the same time ensure access to justice.

She said: ‘We will not legislate in haste only to risk unintended consequences.’

This is a major setback because from a professional journalistic point of view most of the problems of the UK’s media laws being available to launder and protect the reputation of powerful people and organisations home and abroad remain.

The media lawyer David Hooper has brought out a revised edition of his book Buying Silence, which now includes a new chapter telling the inside story of The Mohamed Al-Fayed case.  The first edition was reviewed in the last edition of The Journal.

Al-Fayed had been the owner of Harrods Department store in Knightsbridge, Fulham Football Club and was the father of Dodi Al-Fayed, the film producer with whom Diana, Princess of Wales had been having an affair when they died together in the notorious road crash in Paris on 31^st August 1997.

The new chapter title is ‘Mohamed Al-Fayed: Lies were the truth and the truth was a lie.’ 

Hooper’s 412 page book is the clearest, most powerful and shocking indictment and document Parliament could ever rely on in order to appreciate how the power of money enables the super-rich to destroy their critics through litigation.

Al Fayed and his enablers used the law to cover up his horrific campaign of abuse. Hooper explained: ‘Fayed had a series of aggressive lawyers … there was no shortage of those willing to join the payroll – and skilful public relations advisers. They proved all too successful in suppressing broadcasts and articles exposing Fayed’s conduct.’

Hooper outlined what the government urgently needs to do to stop the abuse of media law. He wrote somewhat hopefully before Labour U-turned: ‘At the centre of the legislation should be an expanded concept of what kind of information is in the public interest. It is also crucial that we legislate against allowing every allegation which could arguably be said to be defamatory to proceed to trial. The courts should balance the public’s right to receive information on a matter of public interest and the writer’s right to freedom of speech against the need to bring the claim and the damage that could be likely to be caused to their reputation or privacy.’

His thoughts are similar to the long-established position the Chartered Institute of Journalists has always held.

The CIoJ has consistently argued that the burden of proof in libel and privacy actions should be reversed from defendant to claimant, and a public interest defence for public interest figures and anyone becoming protagonists in public interest events should have a much higher threshold.

The claimant needs to prove actuated malice and/or a reckless disregard for the truth.  The law needs to stop destroying the lives of people who may have made a mistake in public communication, apologised and deleted or retracted their wrongful allegations. Such litigation should not cost people their livelihoods and homes.

Damage to reputation always needs to be proved materially and quantified; not presumed, or hypothesised.

In the Commons debate last November Labour MP Lloyd Hatton used parliamentary privilege to outline details of alleged SLAPPs. He criticised the culture of some law firms choosing clients ‘based on profit over professional standards’.

He criticised the inadequacy of the Solicitors Regulation Authority only being able to impose a maximum fine of £25,000 on offending law firms.

The Labour government’s inaction has also been criticised by a House of Lords inquiry into the future of the news industry saying it had failed to give SLAPP legislation necessary priority and political will.

The Lords observed this was ‘troubling and has serious potential consequences for press freedom and the future of the news industry.’

The Lords said financial penalties for legal firms deploying SLAPPs should be 10,000 times higher.

While journalists have the Media Lawyers Association on their side, there is also a Society for Media Lawyers which argues that the complaints about media lawfare are ‘overblown.’

However, the CIoJ would argue the most pernicious effect of SLAPPs is ‘the chilling effect’ which is very hard to measure because self-censorship by its very nature is absent from the public record.

English libel law and the disputes engaged in it remain notoriously precarious and expensive.

A recent example reported by Press Gazette and PA Law has been that of Guido Fawkes website owner Paul Staines who agreed to pay the green industrialist Dale Vince £75,000 towards legal costs as well as £9,950 in damages in settlement and ‘to avoid “ruinous” future costs.’

Mr Vince said Staines libelled him by falsely accusing him of having expressed support for Hamas during a Times Radio interview.

Staines was reported as saying ‘It has cost some £250,000 to fight this case, which has not been a bit of fun for me…’

Dale Vince has maintained ‘This was never about the money – which I’ve donated to charities working in Palestine. It’s about free speech and being able to exercise that right without a right-wing pile-on.’

Relevant news coverage and links:-

Press Gazette: 27th November 2024: Lords slam government inaction on SLAPPs, calling for action by summer. The government last week ruled out immediate legislation, saying SLAPPs were a “complex area”. Lords slam government inaction on SLAPPs, call for law …

Law Society Gazette: 21st November 2024: ‘Legislation against so-called SLAPP litigation will not be introduced in this parliamentary session despite Labour’s support for a new law while in opposition, justice minister Heidi Alexander MP revealed today. Government rules out immediate anti-SLAPP legislation

Press Gazette: 6th February 2025: UK Government shelves taking action against SLAPP anti-media lawsuits Response to Future of News inquiry “fails to reflect severity of situation.” UK Government shelves taking action against SLAPP anti- …

The Law Society: 28th Janury 2025: ‘Strategic lawsuits against public participation (or SLAPPs) have garnered media coverage in recent months as political attention has turned to them. Victoria Moffatt explains what they are, and what risks you take representing a client pursuing such a case.’ SLAPPs and reputational risks

See also the front page feature article by journalist Hamish Monk for the CIoJ Journal Winter 2024: ‘Why we need anti-SLAPP law’

‘On October 15, in the bowels of Westminster Hall, the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition met with campaigners, lawyers, lobbyists and reporters in a cloistered side-chamber – the IPU (Inter-Parliamentary Union) 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.’

-o-

Update July/August 2024.

A decision by the Conservative government under Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to call a General Election for 4th July 2024 meant this private member’s bill could not be passed in the Parliamentary session.

The Labour Party won the election by a landslide and it was clear that the current Labour Government under Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, does not intend to revive this legislative measure. Further changes in the law to deal with ‘SLAPPs’ were not included in the new government’s first King’s Speech.

As reported by Michael Cross in the Law Society Gazette ‘In depth: King’s speech – SLAPPs legislation languishes.’

Consequently the briefing along with accompanying pdf file below will be rewritten and updated as soon as possible.

-o-

The problem of lawfare- powerful and wealthy people and bodies using the law to intimidate, discredit, decredentialise, demonise, silence and financially ruin critics and rivals has always been a pernicious threat to freedom and democracy.

At the end of 2023 the Labour MP for Caerphilly, Wayne David introduced a private members’ bill into Parliament which has the backing of Parliament titled: ‘Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill.’

See: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3544

The text of the bill itself is at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-04/0021/230021.pdf

The Bill sought to give courts the power to prevent ‘the misuse of litigation to suppress freedom of speech.’

In other words, once a case comes to court, Judges will be able to stop media law actions such as privacy, libel, misuse of private information and other civil wrongs if under Clause 1 (it will be a section if enacted) the court is able to determine:

‘(a) that the claim is a SLAPP claim and

(b) that the claimant has failed to show that it is more likely than not that the claim would succeed at trial.’

A critical part of the bill is how a court will be able to recognise and declare that the legal claim is a ‘Strategic Litigation (Lawsuit) Against Public Participation.’

It is fascinating that Parliament is being asked to import language formulated in US freedom of speech and First Amendment law.

Clause 2(1) gives the courts the tools to recognise a ‘SLAPP claim’ if:

‘(a) the claimant’s behaviour in relation to the matters complained of in the claim has, or is intended to have, the effect of restraining the defendant’s exercise of the right to freedom of speech,

(b) the information that is or would be disclosed by the exercise of that right relates to a matter of public interest, and

(c) any of the behaviour of the claimant in relation to the matters complained of in the claim is intended to cause the defendant—

(i) harassment, alarm or distress,

(ii) expense, or

(iii) any other harm or inconvenience, beyond that ordinarily encountered in the course of properly conducted litigation.’

In clause 2(3) the Bill proposes to define public interest as:

‘(a) behaviour of the claimant or any other person that is, or is alleged to be, unlawful;

(b) statements made by the claimant or any other person that are, or are alleged to be, false;

(c) public health and safety, the climate or the environment;

(d) an investigation or review being undertaken by a public body’

These definitions are considerably shorter and narrower than those for public interest in journalism codes.

Under clause 2(4) courts will be able to take into account the following categories of ‘SLAPP’ style behaviour:

‘a) whether the behaviour is a disproportionate reaction to the matters complained of in the claim, including whether the costs incurred by the claimant are out of proportion to the remedy sought;

(b) whether the defendant has access to fewer resources with which to defend the claim than another person against whom the claimant could have brought (but did not bring) proceedings in relation to the matters complained of in the claim;

(c) any relevant failure, or anticipated failure, by the claimant (or a person acting on behalf of a claimant) to comply with a pre-action protocol, rule of court or practice direction, or to comply with or follow a rule or recommendation of a professional regulatory body.’

And the Bill also seeks to give courts statutory guidance on what to recognise as relevant and anticipated failures in legal conduct under clauses 2(5):

‘a failure, or anticipated failure, is “relevant” so far as it relates to—

(a) the choice of jurisdiction,

(b) the use of dilatory strategies,

c) the nature or amount of material sought on disclosure,

(d) responses to requests for comment or clarification,

(e) the use of correspondence,

(f) making or responding to offers to settle, or

(g) the use of alternative dispute resolution procedures.’

Why is the UK government giving backing to this private members’ bill and thereby making likely that it could reach the statute book before the end of the current Parliament (as of 21^st April 2024). It also has the support of the main political parties.

See: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-backs-bill-to-end-intimidatory-slapps-lawsuits-stifling-free-speech

The government has recognised that ‘Aggressively litigious Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or SLAPPs, are legal threats brought to intimidate and financially and psychologically exhaust journalists, campaigners and anyone who would criticise or expose corruption.’

Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, Alex Chalk KC, said: ‘This Government has already proved its commitment to cracking down on those with deep pockets who abuse our courts, so we thank Wayne David for bringing forward this important legislation.’

He added: ‘Free speech and the free press are lynchpins of our democracy, and to muzzle people in this way is chilling. We want people to feel confident standing up to the corrupt, knowing the law is firmly on their side.’

The Law Society on 23^rd February 2024 said: ‘More needs to be done to make SLAPPs legislation workable.’ See: https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/contact-or-visit-us/press-office/press-releases/more-needs-to-be-done-to-make-slapps-legislation-workable

Further media coverage of the bill’s introduction.

New Law Journal 28^th February 2024: ‘Support for SLAPP Bill: reducing “frivolous claims.”’

See: https://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/content/support-for-slapp-bill-reducing-frivolous-claims

On 11^th April 2024 Press Gazette reported: “Editors unite in bid to stop anti-SLAPP bill being ‘ultimately redundant.’ Letter co-ordinated by the Anti-SLAPP Coalition says new bill will still result in uncertainty.” See: https://pressgazette.co.uk/media_law/editors-unite-in-bid-to-stop-anti-slapp-bill-being-ultimately-redundant/

The editors argued that the bill needs an amendment to stop the bill from becoming “ineffective, inaccessible, and ultimately redundant” at cracking down on threatening lawsuits aimed at stifling reporting in the public interest.

The letter says the proposed legislation should give judges an objective rather than subjective statutory test for identifying SLAPP claims:

‘Using the subjective test will hinder the early dismissal mechanism that sits at the heart of this bill, but by making a small but important amendment, we can ensure courts and judges are able to make timely, consistent and evidence-based determinations of SLAPP cases before legal costs have accrued.’

The editors fear if courts make a subjective judgment on the intent of a claimant this will be a ‘notoriously difficult, time-intensive, expensive and uncertain process that would undermine the effective operation of the protections the law provides.’

The letter warns it will be near impossible to prove a claimant’s intent and consequently the bill could become a damp squib and not effectively deal with the problem it seeks to remedy.

The editors, not surprisingly, are unhappy with the current definitions of public interest.

Should this bill become law, whether with a subjective or objective test for the judges on determining SLAPP litigation and behaviour, I am sure this will be a positive move in the right direction.

Most US states do have anti-SLAPP laws and combined with the stronger First Amendment protection afforded by US Supreme Court rulings, the protection for journalists and publishers available there has been considerably stronger.

I would argue that the UK’s journalism editors, politicians and judiciary are again failing to effectively solve the problem that freedom of speech is effectively for sale in this country’s legal system.

No progress will ever be made unless all the UK’s legal jurisdictions- England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland place the burden of proof in relation to all media law actions on the claimant rather than the defendant. A further protection could be achieved by introducing an each side bearing its own costs rule.

Additionally the injustice of lawfare and SLAPPs needs a US style First Amendment defence in all media law litigation whereby in public interest cases (involving public interest figures and events) the claimant has to prove the civil wrong took place because the defendant was actuated by malice and/or a reckless disregard for the truth.

I would recommend a very simple piece of legislation telescoping all civil media law wrongs into the threshold of proof needed in the current law of malicious falsehood.

There should also be a statute of limitations on privacy actions as there is for libel.

UK Judges and courts have given lip service and throat clearing rhetorical hot air to freedom of expression over the last half century.

But in reality, they have contributed to a disturbing march towards censorship and the authoritarian tendency; largely because culturally they have no proper idea of the social, constitutional, and cultural purpose of journalism in a democratic society.

I may well be in a minority, but I am convinced that over the last two decades unnecessary media law litigation has taken at least two billion pounds out of the journalism industry most of which has gone into the pockets of lawyers in legal costs at a time when the industry could historically least afford it.

Influential Lawfare and ‘Buying Silence’ publications

Two book publications by highly experienced and respected media lawyers drawing on many decades of professional practice experience have substantially informed the need for legislation to counter SLAPPs and lawfare against freedom of speech.

Lawfare: How Russians, the Rich and the Government Try to Prevent Free Speech and How to Stop Them by Geoffrey Robertson KC was published on the 19th January 2023.

He argued that the British tradition of “free speech” has been a myth. Looking at the history from the middle ages to the present he said the law of libel/defamation has worked to cover up misbehaviour by the rich and powerful, who have hired ‘legal mercenaries’ to intimidate investigative journalists.

He says a new terror has been added through misguided judicial development (sometimes described as ‘judicial activism’) of the laws of privacy, breach of confidence and data protection, to suppress the reporting of truths of public importance to tell.

His book outlines the hidden world of lawfare, where authors struggle against unfair rules that put them always on the defensive and against a costs burden that runs to millions of pounds.

He says law schools do not teach freedom of speech in the context of media law and judges in the UK Supreme Court in many key test cases clearly do not understand it.

Mr Robertson advocates reforms that could end Britain’s developing reputation for being a country where free speech has become more of an expensive privilege than true human right of freedom of expression.

One case history he analysed was that of the distinguished journalist, Catherine Belton:

‘…author of Putin’s People: How the KGB Took Back Russia and Then Took on the West, which attracted a sudden blizzard of legal actions, from Roman Abramovich and three other oligarchs, and from Rosneft, Russia’s national oil company, claiming that the book libelled them. It was estimated that this would cost her publishers £10 million to fight successfully, and more than twice as much if they lost – a real prospect because of the unfair rule in English libel cases that the defendant bears the burden of proof of truth and other defences. There had been preliminary skirmishes before the case settled, at a cost to HarperCollins of £1.5 million in legal fees and a cost to Belton of a year of stress and exhaustion in defending statements of great public interest that she believed were true. The court-enforced settlement was, as usual, strictly confidential, so the public cannot appreciate what infringements of free speech its terms require.’

Buying Silence: How oligarchs, corporations and plutocrats use the law to gag their critics by David Hooper was published by Biteback Publishing on 31st October 2023. Retired media lawyer David Hooper has been in the front line of legal warfare in court in a career spanning fifty years.

His 364 page book is his fourth; following on from Public Scandal: Odium and Contempt (1984), Official Secrets: The Use and Abuse of the Act (1988) and Reputations Under Fire: Winners and Losers in the Libel Business (2000).

The appalling murder of  Daphne Caruana Galizia in Malta became a tipping point for activism and campaigning on media freedom and recognising SLAPP practice in Britain. This is because it became clear that where a legal system permits successful lawfare against journalists there is but a short step to violence and murder. It is too tempting for organised crime and corruptly motivated individuals, corporations and governments to see the law as a weapon to win whatever the truth and costs.

The experience of being ‘attacked’ by aggressive lawyers, heavy and crippling legal costs, deeply intrusive private investigators, often recruited from the world of intelligence and criminal law enforcement, is intolerable. To surrender and abandon the defence is a defeat of freedom of expression and ultimately of democracy.

Hooper explains in chilling detail how the UK legal jurisdiction has been the number one destination for billionaire oligarchs and sometimes ex-convicts linked to global organised crime to ‘launder their reputations.’ The 2013 Defamation Act with its new statutory defences of truth, honest opinion, and public interest had no effect in discouraging what used to be called ‘libel tourism.’

The development of UK media privacy laws opened up a new market in the silencing game.

Hooper argues claimants win cases over publications written about them which are entirely true. There is another pernicious impact of such legally systematic cynicism- the chilling effect, which is another US media legal concept.

The malignant exploiters of media legal opportunity in the British courts will be scaring their opponents into self-censorship and this, says David Hooper, is ‘a devastating blow to investigative journalism, media freedom and the public interest’.

The book is organised into seven parts. First Hooper analyses early SLAPP actions to try to understand ‘Where did it all begin?’  He does this through the following cases: Sir James Goldsmiths and Goldenballs; Robert Maxwell and ‘a crook’s manual to SLAPP actions’; Mohamed Al-Fayed and ‘Lies were the truth and the truth was the lie’; Aga Khan and ‘suing around the world’; Nomura and ‘corporate warfare’; McDonald’s and ‘McLibel, McFolly and not McSilence; and Upjohn ‘suing the Scottish Professor.’

Part two deals with how Russian oligarchs headed for a town called sue including lively chapters on freedom of speech in Russia- perhaps a contradiction in terms, Grigori Loutchansky’s trips to ‘London Reputation Laundromat’, and Gafur Rakhimov- ‘The Oxymoronic Litigant.’ Hooper is a witty writer and this is not a dry legal textbook. The detail is entertaining, absurdist and sobering. Some of it could be described as Monty Python enters Kafka’s The Trial.

Part three explores actions brought by Oligarchs in England, part four covers legal action by plutocrats in England, part five moves onto ‘Hacking and SLAPPing’, followed by part six discussing the worldwide reach of SLAPPers. The final part reveals how the SLAPPers have infiltrated privacy and data protection claims.

It is to David Hooper’s credit that his final conclusive chapter ‘What is to be done?’ must be at least one of the inspirations for The Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill, put forward by Wayne David MP, given its second reading in the Commons in February 2024 and now backed by the Government.

Were it to reach the statute book, this would be a positive step to combatting ‘Buying Silence’ in the courts and an abiding tribute to David Hooper’s advocacy and writing as well as that of Geoffrey Robertson KC and his book Lawfare: How Russians, the Rich and the Government Try to Prevent Free Speech and How to Stop Them.

-o-

Previous measures seeking to combat the SLAPP problem in England and Wales

Solicitors’ Regulation Authority (SRA) using professional disciplinary rules to curb and prevent law firms pursuing legal action that might threaten free speech or the rule of law

More stringent professional disciplinary regulation may turn out to be a more effective or equally useful method of curbing ‘Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation’ SLAPPs or ‘lawfare’ by the rich and powerful against journalists and publishers.

The SRA in November 2022 explained regulatory action would be taken against firms of solicitors ’seeking to threaten or advance meritless claims, including in pre-action correspondence, and including claims where it should be clear that a defence to that type of claim will be successful based on what you know.’

The warning has been issued ‘to guard against getting involved in abusive litigation aimed at silencing legitimate critics.’

Solicitors have been warned it would be a gross breach to mislead recipients of correspondence:

’Examples of abusive conduct or misuse of the legal system include bringing cases or allegations without merit, making unduly aggressive and intimidating threats, or claiming misleading outcomes such as exaggerated cost consequences or imprisonment in a civil claim.’ This includes pre-action letters.

See: ‘SRA issues new warning on solicitors using SLAPPs’ https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/sra-issues-new-warning-on-solicitors-using-slapps/5114434.article

‘SRA wants statutory designation to encourage reporting of SLAPPs’ https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/sra-wants-statutory-designation-to-encourage-reporting-of-slapps/5114475.article

The use of professional regulatory standards in the legal profession is a well-established method of achieving a change in social legal practices identified as being problematic to the process of justice.

The disrupting and prejudicial use of photographing and filming court proceedings during the trial of Bruno Hauptmann for kidnapping the child of Charles Lindburgh in 1935 was curbed by a rule passed and enforced by the American Bar Association in 1937.

This acted as a brake on broadcasting coverage of courtroom proceedings until 1981 when the Supreme Court ruling in Chandler v Florida on First Amendment grounds declared that states would be entitled to experiment with televising court proceedings.

See: ‘ABA Repeals Its 1937 Canon Against Cameras in the Courtroom’ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1982/08/12/aba-repeals-its-1937-canon-against-cameras-in-the-courtroom/2418b074-dbe0-4aac-acf6-ff0b6b71f5b4/

Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560 (1981) state could allow the broadcast and still photography coverage of criminal trials. See: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep449/usrep449560/usrep449560.pdf & https://www.oyez.org/cases/1980/79-1260

---

UK government announced 13th June 2023 that ‘Judges will be given greater powers to dismiss lawsuits designed purely to evade scrutiny and stifle freedom of speech through government amendments to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill.’

See: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/crackdown-on-criminals-silencing-critics-to-be-added-to-economic-crime-bill

The government explained:

‘Definition of an economic crime SLAPP

For the purposes of section (Strategic litigation against public participation: requirement to make rules of court) a claim is a “SLAPP claim” if—

• the claimant’s behaviour in relation to the matters complained of in the claim has, or is intended to have, the effect of restraining the defendant’s exercise of the right to freedom of speech
• the information that is or would be disclosed by the exercise of that right has to do with economic crime
• that disclosure is or would be made for a purpose related to the public interest in combating economic crime
• any of the behaviour of the claimant in relation to the matters complained of in the claim is intended to cause the defendant—
• harassment, alarm or distress
• expense
• any other harm or inconvenience
• beyond that ordinarily encountered in the course of properly conducted litigation

SLAPPs legislation will only apply to England and Wales.

Coverage in UK media

Guardian: ‘UK judges to be given powers to dismiss oppressive Slapps lawsuits at early stage. Amendments to bill address concerns that strategic lawsuits against public participation stifle free speech.’

See: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/13/uk-judges-to-be-given-powers-to-dismiss-oppressive-slapps-lawsuits-at-early-stage

Financial Times (behind paywall): ‘Judges in England to gain new powers in clampdown on abusive litigation. Long-awaited restrictions on ‘Slapp’ suits will cover only economic crime cases.’ See: https://www.ft.com/content/2a9607c5-c1be-47c8-8fcd-027b5cbf4c42

Hold The Front Page: ‘Editors welcome plan to protect journalists from ‘intimidating’ legal threats.’ See: https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2023/news/editors-welcome-plan-to-protect-journalists-from-intimidating-legal-threats/

A further development in the SLAPP issue took place in September 2023 when the UK government announced it was setting up a ‘task force’ to address the problems.

See: ‘Government-led task force launched to protect journalism from SLAPPs Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer writes for Press Gazette about a new task force to tackle the rise of SLAPPs.’

Press Gazette 13^th September 2023 at: https://pressgazette.co.uk/media_law/government-led-task-force-protect-journalism-from-slapps/

It was reported that the task force would meet every two months and is expected to commission research to investigate the prevalence of SLAPPs against journalists, draw up plans for specialist training for judges and law professionals to help them recognise and throw out SLAPPs, and develop guidance to support journalists and publishers.

The Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer was quoted as saying: ‘The health of our democracy relies on journalists and investigators having the freedom to criticise the powers that be.’

The UK Government media release on the subject: ‘New plans to stop journalists being silenced by baseless lawsuits.’

See: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-plans-to-stop-journalists-being-silenced-by-baseless-lawsuits

The government claims: ‘New taskforce will build on work in Economic Crime Bill to ban SLAPPs in British courts. Journalists will be better protected exposing the crimes of powerful figures under plans for a new government-led taskforce to clamp down on obstructive and costly legal action designed to silence critics.’

This was followed up by an open letter from journalism NGOs and editors calling for a standalone bill on SLAPPs to ‘ensure journalists and public watchdogs are able to continue their work without risking legal harassment.’ The letter argued the anti-SLAPP amendment to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill ‘does not go far enough as it only covers claims relating to the “public interest in protecting society from economic crimes”…The next step must be a standalone Anti-SLAPP Bill to extend protections to everyone who speaks out in the public interest.’

See: Press Gazette 21^st September 2023 ‘UK’s top editors call for standalone anti-SLAPP bill. Signatories to the letter include the editors of The Sun, The Guardian, the FT and Private Eye’ at: https://pressgazette.co.uk/media_law/slapps-editors-kings-speech-standalone-bill/

‘Society of Editors joins over 60 editors in calling on UK Government to commit to a standalone anti-SLAPP law’ at: https://www.societyofeditors.org/soe_news/society-joins-over-60-editors-in-calling-on-uk-government-to-commit-to-a-standalone-anti-slapp-law/

Pdf file of this briefing available to download on link below

The second edition of The UK Media Law Pocketbook presents updated and extended practical guidance on everyday legal issues for working journalists and media professionals. This book covers traditional print and broadcast as well as digital multimedia, such as blogging and instant messaging, with clear explanations of new legal cases, legislation and regulation, and new chapters on freedom of information and social media law. Links to seven new online chapters allow readers to access all the most up-to-date laws and guidance around data protection, covering inquests, courts-martial, public inquiries, family courts, local government, and the media law of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Tim Crook critically explores emerging global issues and proposals for reform with concise summaries of recent cases illustrating media law in action, as well as tips on pitfalls to avoid.

The UK Media Law Pocketbook is a key reference for journalists and media workers across England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. The book’s companion website provides downloadable sound files, video summaries, and updates all the developments in one of the most dynamic and rapidly changing fields of law. Visit https://ukmedialawpocketbook.com.

Preview:- https://www.routledge.com/The-UK-Media-Law- Pocketbook/Crook/p/book/9781138309166?gclid=Cj0KCQjw_r6hBhDdARIsAMIDhV87Y5f5ZJ uc0aPf-FnNl6_hR3uUZgH6lxKek5sxMs9Mk2lAofCHjBYaAs4FEALw_wcB