What is a SLAPP and why are they a problem?

Imagine you’re rich, and somebody wants to publish information that reflects poorly on you. Maybe a reporter unearthed evidence of a corrupt deal you did, or your tenant posted images online of a sewage leak. The information may be true, but no matter. You call your lawyer who, for the price of £1,000 or more – a sum that isn’t much to you, anyway – will send a letter threatening to sue.

Legal threats are a powerful tool for silencing criticism, especially for the wealthy. The reason they work is simple. In England and Wales, where the law is favourable to libel claimants, threatening to sue will cost your critic a lot of money in legal advice.

If the case escalates, and the threat becomes a lawsuit that goes to court, costs can run into the hundreds of thousands of pounds. Faced with financial ruin, many back down at the earliest possible stage.

It’s how wrongdoers escape scrutiny and scandals go unearthed. Take Mohamed Al Fayed, the late Harrods owner accused of serial rape in a recent BBC documentary. Known for his taste for lawsuits, Fayed is said to have sued Vanity Fair and The Observer in the 1990s, and threatened others too. It’s easy to see why people didn’t want to go after Fayed. It was only after his death last year that the full extent of the allegations against him emerged.

Wherever the action falls on the spectrum – from threats to a full-blown lawsuit – the disturbing trend for abusive legal action is increasingly known as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). And according to campaigners, it’s doing real public harm.

What are politicians doing about SLAPPS?

Political leaders say they want to fix the problem. Last month, the prime minister Sir Keir Starmer wrote a piece in the Guardian headlined: “Journalism is the lifeblood of British democracy. My government will protect it.”

He railed against the threats that journalists face worldwide, from prison sentences abroad, to online abuse and the misuse of legal threats here in the UK. He used the term SLAPPs, and vowed to protect journalists. But eagle-eyed commentators noted that he gave no specific plan or timeline.

Starmer’s article is the latest in a series of public statements that acknowledge the gravity of the situation, but offer no solution. His words have been echoed by various ministers across several government departments, according to Susan Coughtrie, the director of Foreign Policy Centre (FPC) and co-chair of the UK Anti SLAPP Coalition. She added: “These words must urgently be translated into concrete action. With no clear legislative vehicle, those affected by SLAPPs – across a wide spectrum of issues on matters of public interest – remain unprotected.”

Where did the anti-SLAPP movement come from?

Momentum behind the anti-SLAPP movement first took off after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, when it emerged that some oligarchs had been weaponising lawsuits to quash public scrutiny. There was outcry when Catherine Belton and her publisher, HarperCollins, were sued by the billionaire Roman Abramovich over her book Putin’s People.

Soon afterwards, the FPC published a report on how SLAPPs stifle media and journalists worldwide. It was the first comprehensive review of the impact London lawyers have on freedom of expression and the power imbalance between claimant and defendant. The report was a cornerstone in an unprecedented drive to bring in a law to prevent SLAPPs.

In early 2023 there was an uproar when the Treasury granted lawyers for the sanctioned Russian warlord Yevgeny Prigozhin a licence to sue Eliot Higgins. Higgins, the founder of the conflict investigations outlet Bellingcat, had tweeted that Prigozhin led the Wagner Group mercenary army. This was – of course – true.

The Conservative government decided to act and, in October last year, UK laws were changed to give judges new powers to quickly dismiss lawsuits aimed at silencing those exposing economic crimes. The new protection came via an amendment to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act. The law also introduced a legal definition of SLAPPs, and a cost protection scheme to aid defendants if a case proceeds.

However, despite the Act becoming law more than a year ago, the powers aren’t yet in effect. The Civil Procedure Rules committee (the body that governs the practice and procedure of civil courts) paused implementation over uncertainty on how to make it work. With the change of government, there’s little sign of this being resolved quickly.

So despite the change being hailed as a victory, it’s not yet working. Even if it was, the scope of its protection is limited.

For instance, the author Tom Burgis faced a lawsuit from the Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation (ENRC), a mining company once listed on the FTSE 100, complaining that his book Kleptopia accused the company of ordering the murders of three men. Despite the book's focus on economic crime, the specific allegation was of murder, so the new law would offer no protection. (Fortunately for Burgis, a judge dismissed the case on other grounds, namely that a company cannot be accused of murder – only individuals can.)

A spokesperson for ENRC denied that the lawsuit was a SLAPP.

What happened to the model SLAPP law?

It was obvious to many at this point that more complete legislation was needed.

When the Labour MP Wayne David was offered the opportunity to bring a Private Member’s Bill of his choice, he chose the topic of broader protections against SLAPP lawsuits. Acknowledging the shortcomings of their earlier legislation, the Conservative government indicated they were prepared to whip their MPs to vote in favour of the bill.

But when Rishi Sunak called the general election earlier than expected, and Parliament was dissolved, the bill was halted.

In October, Gregory Stafford, a newly elected Conservative MP, introduced a Presentation Bill on SLAPPs. However, this type of Private Member’s Bill typically raises awareness of issues, but has only a slim chance of success, because the time given to debate it is limited.

In all probability, Stafford’s bill will fail – and the government’s stance on SLAPPs remains ambiguous. Frederick Ponsonby, the justice minister, has said he can’t commit to standalone SLAPP legislation or a timeline for addressing the issue.

Coughtrie said: “It's clear there has been an appetite to address this issue, but there is still a considerable way to go, given journalists, campaigners, academics and many others are continuing to be silenced by SLAPPs threats and important information is failing to reach the public.”

The Silenced Stories project

That’s why TBIJ has launched our Silenced Stories project. Over the past year the team has spoken to journalists, campaigners, bloggers and everyday citizens who tried to speak out on matters of public interest and were stopped. Not because they had their facts wrong, but because of the threat of a lawsuit.

TBIJ briefed MPs on a range of cases, from sexual abuse to failing institutions and shady business deals – and MPs decided to hold a half-day parliamentary debate to discuss the stories. Threats can be openly discussed in Parliament because MPs can speak there under a legal protection known as parliamentary privilege.

TBIJ’s investigation shows how the notorious lawsuits like the Belton case are the tip of the iceberg. Many stories are stopped dead before ever reaching the public.

TBIJ didn’t necessarily judge every incident in the project to be a SLAPP. Nor does every instance involve the violation of a law, professional code or obligation. But each case helps illustrate a wider ecosystem in which legal responses have a chilling effect on the freedom of expression and the press.

TBIJ is pretty used to getting legal threats. We understand the risks we take when we publish information which, despite being in the public interest, criticises those with power. But we keep doing it anyway because it matters. In Starmer’s words: “There can be nothing more traditional, democratic or British than a robust free press, fearlessly holding the powerful to account.”