TBIJ teams up with MPs to uncover stories silenced by threats

They tried to speak up – about allegations of shady business deals, failing institutions, and sexual abuse. But they were silenced before their stories could be told.

Over the past year, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) has uncovered public-interest stories that the rich and powerful, armed with lawyers, suppressed before they ever became public. Today these stories will form the basis of a parliamentary debate among backbench MPs.

The debate is expected to cover:

• Early stories about allegations of sexual abuse against Mohamed Al-Fayed

• Never before seen legal threats from the Post Office to Computer Weekly

• Individual citizens with no legal support facing overwhelming threats for raising concerns

• Previously unpublishable allegations of shady dealings by the rich and powerful

• Suppressed scrutiny of major companies with multi-million pound government contracts

TBIJ’s investigation shows how these incidents fit into a larger, disturbing trend for a type of legal action known as SLAPPs – strategic lawsuits against public participation. These are actions designed to muzzle free speech and silence criticism before it reaches the public.

Over the past year TBIJ 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. In the UK the costs of legal action are so overwhelming – even when they are right – that the prospect can be enough to force these people into silence.

TBIJ has uncovered how lawyers played a crucial role in suppressing some of the biggest scandals of our time. Take the case of the Post Office, which sent intimidating letters to Computer Weekly over its early reporting on the flawed Horizon software – long before the story gained national attention.

TBIJ can also show that Mohamed Al-Fayed threatened journalists who tried to expose allegations of sexual abuse during the 1990s and 2000s. Had those reports been published, Fayed might have faced public scrutiny and justice long before he died last year, aged 94, with his reputation unscathed.

These aren’t the well-known SLAPP cases that make it to court. They are stories silenced behind the scenes: changed or blocked before would-be readers are any the wiser.

TBIJ has not necessarily judged every incident it uncovered to be a SLAPP, in the sense of being a potentially abusive or meritless pre-publication threat. Nor are they all violations of a law, professional code or obligation. But each one shows how the system as it exists today can turn the simple threat of legal action into a chilling effect on freedom of expression and the press.

It’s not just journalists covering high-profile cases who receive these threats. TBIJ found instances where ordinary people were sent intimidating legal letters, such as a disabled man who shared a post on his MP’s Facebook page that called for better protections against exploitative get-rich-quick schemes.

The team spoke to more than 30 individuals and organisations across the UK who believed they had been silenced. TBIJ prepared a briefing for MPs, in the hope that they would hold a debate in Parliament to scrutinise these cases. MPs can speak in the House of Commons without fear of being sued, due to a protection known as parliamentary privilege.

TBIJ briefed MPs from six political parties, including Labour’s Joe Powell and the Conservatives’ David Davies, on stories of local, national and international importance. In total 23 parliamentarians signed an application for a half-day debate. And that application was granted for Thursday November 21 2024.

Because of the legal risk that would come with publishing the stories themselves, TBIJ can only report what has been said about them in Parliament.

TBIJ has done its utmost to help people share their stories as part of this project. However, even a parliamentary debate is not enough for some to speak freely.

Some couldn’t take part simply because they felt the danger was too great. One publication withdrew a story about international corruption allegations because of the high risk, and because it had spent so much money on recent court cases. The journalist whose story was killed said they were “gutted” not to participate.

Another source withdrew their case of being silenced because they were facing personal consequences. They’d spent a year reporting on an instance of sanctions evasion, having found “a smoking gun” in terms of evidence. But they had to pull out, despite the fact that in their words: “It’s happening in London, it’s undermining sanctions, and morally I think there’s a story.”

Other journalists spoke poignantly, and anonymously, about the risks they face reporting stories about sexual abuse. One serious allegation against a powerful individual couldn’t be shared because of complications over an anonymity order in the courts. In another case, a reporter shared the story of a woman forced by legal threats to take down social media posts about a rich individual, only for him to later be convicted of offences against other women.

Reporters shared their regret that they could not publish stories where there was credible evidence of a single case of sexual assault, because multiple testimonies are usually required to get past their newsroom’s lawyers.

Based on TBIJ’s briefing, experts said the “complete vacuum of information” caused by legal threats was leading to harm upon harm as journalists struggled to get the word out, letting wrongdoers keep doing wrong.

Susan Coughtrie, director of the Foreign Policy Centre, said: “Time and again we see how SLAPPs can prevent or seriously delay issues of public importance being redressed, often resulting in far greater harm being caused. We urgently need to redress the balance through a standalone anti-SLAPP law, which would give journalists, and other SLAPP targets, greater confidence that they can defend their reporting without facing potentially life-altering financial penalties.”

When these silenced stories are discussed in Parliament, they can finally find their place in public debate. They’ll also help to spark a wider debate about what can be done to protect media freedom in the UK.