Courts in England and Wales are to be granted new powers to dismiss lawsuits employed by wealthy claimants to stifle free speech, the government has said.
The justice secretary, Dominic Raab, announced proposals on Wednesday for a three-stage test to tackle at an early stage intimidatory legal actions against reporters and publishers, known as strategic lawsuits against public participation, or Slapps.
Slapps have come under the spotlight with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and allegations that oligarchs close to Vladimir Putin are using expensive litigation in UK courts to shut down criticism and deter investigations into their affairs.
The government said the proposed test would first assess if the case is against journalistic activity that is in the public interest, such as investigating financial misconduct by a company or individual.
It would then examine if there is evidence of abuse of process, such as whether the claimant has sent a barrage of highly aggressive letters on a trivial matter. Third, it would consider whether the case has a realistic prospect of success.
Anyone subject to a suspected Slapp would be able to apply the court to have it considered for early dismissal.
Announcing the intention to legislate “at the earliest opportunity”, the government also proposed a cap on costs to “enable meritless cases to be properly defended”, which can be created by ministers under secondary legislation without the need for parliamentary approval.
Raab said: “We won’t let those bankrolling Putin exploit the UK’s legal jurisdiction to muzzle their critics. So today I’m announcing reforms to uphold freedom of speech, end the abuse of our justice system, and defend those who bravely shine a light on corruption.”
The government referenced a case brought against Tom Burgis, the author of Kleptopia: How Dirty Money is Conquering the World, by the Kazakh mining group ENRC in a high-profile case that was thrown out by the high court.
It said by issuing a barrage of legal letters, the purpose of a Slapp was often to suppress publications without a case ever coming to court and being reported. Responses to a call for evidence suggested they were working, preventing stories on certain individuals or topics, the government said.
The decision to introduce an earlier stage to dismiss cases follows in the footsteps of many US states and Canadian provinces, and exhortations to do so from the former cabinet minister and anti-Slapp campaigner David Davis and media defence lawyers.
Michelle Stanistreet, the general secretary of the National Union of Journalists, said the proposals were “a significant step in tackling the deployment of Slapps and other forms of lawfare designed to stymie journalistic investigations. Abuse of the law by the sly and mighty, who deeply resent the legitimate work of the media in calling them to account, is a scourge which must be eradicated.”
Dawn Alford, the executive director of the Society of Editors, described the measures as “essential protections that should deter the wealthy from using the threat of expensive litigation to silence their critics and should allow journalists and others the ability to fulfil their roles as the public’s watchdog without bullying or intimidation”.
The government said it would set out the level of cost caps and design of the scheme in due course and look further into the case for defamation law reform.
