Courts to gain powers to throw out lawsuits designed to silence critics
Legal threats known as Slapps are often used by the rich and powerful to intimidate and financially exhaust opponents.
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Judges will be given more powers to throw out lawsuits that allow the rich and powerful to gag the press, under new Government proposals to help protect public interest speech.
These legal threats, known as strategic lawsuits against public participation (Slapps), are often used by wealthy individuals and firms to try to stop journalists or campaigners from exposing wrongdoing under defamation and privacy laws.
The Government has tabled amendments to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill which will establish an early dismissal mechanism to make it easier for courts in England and Wales to quickly dismiss Slapps related to economic crime, according to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ).
We are stamping out the brazen abuse of our legal system that has allowed wealthy individuals to silence investigators who are trying to expose their wrongdoing
The legislation will define in law for the first time the characteristics of Slapps about economic crime – to which up to 70% of them are estimated to relate.
It will say that a claim counts as a Slapp if it is made to stifle someone’s freedom of speech, if the claimant’s behaviour is intended to cause the defendant distress or expense, and if the story is in the public interest to combat economic crime.
The early dismissal mechanism will test whether a case falls under this definition, and whether it is likely to succeed, putting the onus on the complainant, rather than the defendant, to prove it has legal merit.
The Government also plans to introduce a cap on the high costs associated with Slapps to prevent them from being financially ruinous, the MoJ said.
Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary Alex Chalk said: “We are stamping out the brazen abuse of our legal system that has allowed wealthy individuals to silence investigators who are trying to expose their wrongdoing.
“These measures will protect the values of freedom of speech that underpin our democracy and help better protect reporters who are shining a light on their crimes.”
Justice minister Lord Bellamy added that the change will reduce “the costs and stresses of lengthy legal proceedings”.
The Government has been under pressure to end the use of Slapps, with MPs urging Mr Chalk’s predecessor Dominic Raab to legislate against them in recent months.
Proposed reforms to give the courts new powers to throw out meritless claims more quickly and limit costs were first announced by the Government in July last year.
There have been prominent examples of Russian oligarchs using Slapps to silence critics in recent years, including a defamation case settled by HarperCollins and author Catherine Belton with Roman Abramovich, after her book Putin’s People included claims he purchased Chelsea football club in 2003 at the Russian president’s command.
Security minister Tom Tugendhat said: “These new measures are a victory for truth and justice, and a blow to those who try and export their corruption to the UK.
“They will help expose wrongdoing and bring an end to spurious lawsuits from those who seek to suppress our freedom of speech.”
Dawn Alford, executive director of the Society of Editors said: “The expected inclusion of this new amendment by the government is a welcome and significant first step in tackling Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (Slapps) and putting an end to the ability of the rich and powerful to weaponise and abuse the legal system to silence and intimidate their critics.
“Moving forward, it is essential that the government builds on this first step by also introducing further protections including a cap on costs to protect individuals from the threat of costly and prolonged litigation as well as sufficient penalties to deter the use of Slapps as an attractive method of intimidation.”