SLAPPs thwarted attempts to stop Al-Fayed, says MP

Mohamed Al-Fayed’s sexual abuse could have been stopped were it not for legal threats against journalists who investigated allegations against him, an MP has told the Commons today.

“For decades, efforts to hold Al-Fayed accountable were thwarted by legal threats and intimidation,” the Labour MP Joe Powell told Parliament. He was speaking in a parliamentary debate into an aggressive form of legal action known as SLAPPs – strategic lawsuits against public participation. The debate was prompted by the Silenced Stories project, led by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), which uncovered stories suppressed by legal threats.

In September the BBC aired allegations that Al-Fayed, once the owner of Harrods, had raped five women and sexually assaulted over a dozen others. Since then more than 200 women have come forward with further allegations. The scale of alleged abuse has been likened to that of Jimmy Savile.

Powell, MP for Kensington and Bayswater, said that The Mail on Sunday had tried to report in 2008 that Al-Fayed was under investigation for sexually assaulting a 15-year-old. However, threats from his lawyers had forced the newspaper to remove his name, and it referred only to a “senior Harrods executive”.

“That is how SLAPPs work,” said Powell. “They don’t just protect reputations. They shield individuals from accountability and allow abuse to continue unchecked.

“Al-Fayed died before he could face justice but imagine how many women’s lives would not have been ruined if anti-SLAPP legislation had been in place and journalists had been able to report freely on the case.”

SLAPPs are used by rich and powerful individuals and organisations, with the help of their lawyers, to prevent allegations of wrongdoing from being made public. These threats are particularly effective in the UK where the cost of defending legal action is very high.

TBIJ has spent the last year compiling important stories that were kept from the public by such threats. They include work by journalists, campaigners, bloggers and everyday citizens. These examples were then passed to MPs, who were able to talk about them without fear of being sued because of a legal protection called parliamentary privilege.

During the debate MPs cited about a dozen examples of legal threats being used to silence scrutiny of the wealthy and influential. There was cross-party agreement about the damaging effect SLAPPs have on freedom of speech and democracy, and the harm done to those targeted by such tactics, seen as a form of “lawfare”.

MPs said that SLAPPs were used to silence allegations of sexual abuse, negligent landlords, questionable financial dealings and wrongdoing by those in power, including Post Office executives.

Rachel Gilmour, Liberal Democrat MP for Tiverton and Minehead, spoke about the experiences of Carrie Jones, who was threatened with legal action by a “wealth creator”, Samuel Leeds. Jones’s brother, Danny, took his own life after spending thousands of pounds on Leeds’ “controversial” courses, Gilmour said.

“Jones wanted answers for her family but she also felt there was a serious public interest concern about Mr Leeds’ courses, not least because his courses did not appear to be regulated,” Gilmour said.

She described how, shortly after raising concerns with her local MP, Jones received a legal threat from Leeds’ solicitors suggesting she was “participating in a campaign of harassment”. The letter warned legal action could follow if she suggested Leeds “had any influence on her brother’s suicide”.

“Carrie responded firmly that she would not retract her criticism and would continue to raise awareness until her questions were answered – what a very, very brave woman,” said Gilmour. The Guardian newspaper found 15 individuals had been subjected to legal threats from Leeds, Gilmour said.

Gilmour quoted a spokesperson for Leeds, who said Jones’s brother’s death was a “tragedy”, but that her account of his death was “one-sided and misses important context which we have no confidence you will fairly represent to fellow MPs”.

Lloyd Hatton, Labour MP for South Dorset, said the purpose of SLAPPs was to “harass, intimidate, financially and psychologically exhaust one's opponents via improper and costly legal intervention”.

“SLAPPs are just another name for lawfare – for legal threats, for intimidation or, simply put, for bullying and this form of bullying has been going on for years,” he said. “However, it is a tool that is only available to those with deep pockets.”

There is limited anti-SLAPP legislation on the books. In October 2023, an amendment to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act introduced a legal definition of SLAPPs and a cost protection scheme to aid defendants. Judges would also have the power to quickly dismiss spurious lawsuits. However, the powers only apply to reporting on economic crime – leaving reporting on other forms of wrongdoing open to being suppressed.

During the debate MPs from seven parties called for a wider crackdown on SLAPPs through new legislation.

Speaking to Heidi Alexander, a justice minister who was in the chamber, Siân Berry – the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion – said: “I hope that the minister today will look at this case, these issues of abuses of legal proceedings, the use of bullying lawfare, using money and resources to shield the powerful from proper public scrutiny when they should be held to account, and that the minister will look at bringing in new action to put in a robust, broad and comprehensive bill to prevent this going on.”

Alexander acknowledged that SLAPPs “represent an abuse of our legal system, curtail free speech, have a chilling effect on public interest journalism, and pose a threat to our democracy”, but said a new law would not be brought forward during this parliament.

This story was amended on 2 December 2024 to clarify that MPs from seven parties attended the debate.