Inaction on abusive legal actions is a SLAPP in the face

Everybody should have the protection they need to speak to truth to power. That’s why we must reform Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, abusive legal actions used by powerful or wealthy individuals or organisations to stifle critical speech, say Baroness Stowell and John Whittingdale

Like many others, we watched the King’s Speech last month with great interest, but were disappointed that one of the most pressing issues affecting freedom of expression today was not mentioned. 

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, SLAPPs are abusive legal actions used by powerful or wealthy individuals or organisations to stifle critical speech. While those directed at investigative journalists like Tom Burgis or Catherine Belton are best known, increasingly we have heard how these tactics have been used against academics, local campaigners, and victims of crime, including survivors of sexual and gender-based violence. What unites these targets is their speech and the steps some are willing to take to silence them.

While British courts are globally respected, the system can be abused to use the costs and time needed to mount a defence to silence people speaking out on a range of public interest matters. And when those brave enough to speak out are silenced we all suffer, leaving us to ask: What happens when such abuse is left unchecked? One only needs to think of the Post Office Horizon scandal or how long it took for Saville or Al-Fayed abuse allegations to come to light to realise the impact on justice for wrongdoing.

Freedom of speech

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, both houses of Parliament have acknowledged the impact of SLAPPs, but progress to stamp them out has faltered. We have limited protections for reporting on economic crime – which we welcome – but we have repeatedly joined others, including the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, the Media Lawyers Association and News Media Association, in raising concerns about the scope and efficacy of these provisions. They do not go far enough. 

This is why we are stepping forward to ensure everyone can access the protections they need to speak out on the issues that are important to them. Both of us secured a Private Member’s Bill, one in each chamber, and have decided to bring forward legal protections to create a filter mechanism that empowers courts to swiftly dispose of SLAPPs, while at the same time protecting access to justice. 

In abusive legal actions, the process itself can become the punishment. The anti-SLAPP measures introduced in 2023 have not done enough to change that. Tax campaigner Dan Neidle was the first person to successfully use these protections, yet his victory cost more than £146,000 and eight months of his life.

Our proposals would allow judges to identify abusive claims at an early stage, before legal costs spiral. Genuine claimants would still be able to pursue their cases, but those seeking to use the courts to silence criticism would face a stronger deterrent. The aim is simple: to give people a fair chance to defend themselves and greater confidence in the justice system.

Continued inaction brings too much hardship to those brave enough to speak out and speak up. A former patient of a cosmetic surgery clinic was told that the fear of imprisonment for breaching an injunction was the only way to stop her “itchy fingers” after being sued for critical posts in a Facebook group. A local campaigner endured over three years of legal abuse solely for trying to support the local community in combatting a foul odour, called the Penrith Pong. Women who have spoken out after being sexually assaulted have had the courts being used to further the trauma they survived. 

This is not justice, and that’s why we need to finally change things.

Baroness Stowell is a member of the House of Lords

John Whittingdale is MP for Maldon