In November 2024 the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee strongly criticised the government’s failure to delay introducing an effective anti-SLAPPs law.
The present anti-SLAPPs law is confined to economic crimes and likely to serve up a legal bean feast.
There was an oven-ready bill introduced by Wayne David MP, but that lapsed with the 2024 election. The government’s approach seems to be to wait and see whether changes in the civil procedure rules solve the problem.
This will not do.
It is too easy for aggressive claimant lawyers to threaten legal action. Solicitors need to establish how the libel claim is funded.
A Russian policeman with practically no connection to this country and a salary of £3,869 was nevertheless able to bring a libel claim against Bill Browder, decamping with £670,000 unpaid costs when the action was thrown out . Solicitors should have to make greater enquiries as to the truth of the claim. A libel action was brought against Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat by Evgeny Prigozhin of the notorious Wagner Group notwithstanding his sanctioning and indictment in the USA . Insufficient weight is given to the public’s right to information and freedom of speech. Establishing a defence of public interest is too costly and difficult and can become a trial of the journalist.
We need a law that enables SLAPP actions to be struck out cheaply and swiftly and for a tightening of the rules of conduct under which solicitors operate and for very much higher fines when misconduct is proved.
Solicitors need to be accountable for the actions of their private investigators and public relations consultants. Intrusive and intimidating surveillance, hacking and using public relations advisers to plant negative stories are unacceptable.
The case involving Catherine Belton’s book Putin’s People illustrates what is wrong with the law. A raft of Russian oligarchs and an oil company decided to sue just before the expiration of the limitation period and after Putin’s fury at Alexei Navalny’s praise of the book. In 2014 Professor Dawisha’s important book Putin’s Kleptocracy could not be published in the UK because of libel risks.
Statistics from the Coalition against SLAPPs in Europe show that SLAPPs are increasing in England. This is the tip of the iceberg. They do not record the stories that are not published or investigations not undertaken due to legal threats. SLAPPs include not only libel but also privacy, data protection, freedom of information and intellectual property claims. Journalists can be individually sued as in the case of Carole Cadwalladr without the support of a media organisation.
Mohamed Al-Fayed was a notorious SLAPPster. Henry Porter, Vanity Fair’s London editor, and I had in 1997 established Al-Fayed’s criminality. In the win at all costs tactics which characterise such cases, Fayed tried to get us arrested. By aggressive legal and public relations strategies Al-Fayed was able to prevent his full exposure until 2024.
Those unfairly maligned must have a remedy.
But there is a pressing need for a public interest defence striking a balance between the public’s right to information and the claimant’s need to bring a libel action.
Estimates submitted to the court in the action being brought by Mohamed Amersi against the BBC suggest that the action could cost £10 million.
Justice is much better served when swift and inexpensive. A radical reassessment of the law of libel is required.
Guest blog written by David Hooper, a leading libel solicitor, having worked with top publishers and newspapers. The updated version of his book “Buying Silence”, which extensively sets out the need for an effective anti-SLAPPs law, is out to buy now.
