Hacked Off campaigns for a free and accountable media and, in particular, for the implementation of the measures recommended by Sir Brian Leveson to ensure that the press is subject to independent and effective regulation. We believe that the press should be held accountable to standards which protect the public, strengthen democracy and safeguard freedom of expression and that independent and effective regulation will protect the public interest journalism which is vital to any democracy.

We also support victims of abuse by the press and provide information to Ministers and Parliamentarians in relation to law and practice relating to individuals and groups facing unwarranted interference by the media. We campaign for measures which will ensure access to justice to vindicate rights to privacy and reputation which have been unlawfully interfered with by the media.

Over the past decade, there has been a powerful public campaign across Europe in relation to the issue of SLAPPs.[1] This gained momentum in the UK after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The campaign led the then government to put forward legislation designed to deal with claims which have the effect of improperly restraining disclosures relating to economic crime. This was sections 192 and 193 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (“the 2023 Act”). These complex provisions are generally regarded as unsatisfactory and have only been relied on in one reported case, in which they made no difference to the outcome.[2]

SLAPPs and the Press

There is no agreed definition of what constitutes a “SLAPP” and no informed consensus as to how prevalent such claims are. The UK Anti-SLAPP coalition’s website states that

“SLAPPs are abusive lawsuits filed by a private party with the purpose of silencing critical speech. They enable the wealthy and powerful to abuse British courts to silence the public”.

The 2024 EU Anti-SLAPP Directive (Directive (EU) 2024/1069) relates to

“court proceedings which are not brought to genuinely assert or exercise a right, but have as their main purpose the prevention, restriction or penalisation of public participation, frequently exploiting an imbalance of power between the parties, and which pursue unfounded claims”

Most claims against the press do not fall within these definitions. If there is an “imbalance of power” in such claims it is often in favour of the newspaper defendant. The claimants are often not wealthy individuals whilst national newspapers have considerable resources and can use “bullying” and delaying tactics (of the kind said to be used by “SLAPP” claimants) to deter valid claims. Nevertheless, we agree that it is important to ensure that “abusive lawsuits” by wealthy claimants do not inhibit the press from reporting on matters of public interest.

This issue was addressed by the Leveson Report which proposed that there should be a costs incentive for newspapers to join an independent self-regulator which provides a free arbitration service.[3] This proposal was enacted by section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 which provided, among other things, that if a newspaper joined such a self-regulator, a claimant who did not use the arbitration service would be ordered to pay the newspaper’s costs even if their claim was successful. This would have provided powerful support for newspapers faced with “SLAPP” claims. Section 40 also provided an incentive for newspapers to join an independent self-regulator because a publisher who was not a member would normally be ordered to pay the claimant’s costs, even if the claimant lost the case. Unfortunately, section 40 was never brought into force and was repealed by the Media Act 2024.

If the press is threatened by SLAPPs, the re-enactment of section 40 would provide protection whilst, at the same time, providing a powerful incentive to the press to join a self-regulator which meets the standards of independence laid down in the Leveson Report. Access to justice for victims of press wrongdoing would be provided by the free arbitration system offered by such a regulator.

The Stowell/Whittingdale Bill

The private members Bill promoted by Baroness Stowell and Sir John Whittingdale seeks to address SLAPPs more generally. This does not take the same approach as the 2023 Act or the EU Directive but is, instead, based on a flawed and widely criticised Canadian model. We are gravely concerned that, if enacted, the Bill could be weaponised by the corporate press to deter genuine claims brought by victims of press abuse and will, in any event, greatly increase the costs of libel actions and the delay in bringing them to court.

This is because the Bill does not just apply to abusive claims brought by the powerful against the powerless. It applies:

• To any claim where the subject matter to which the claim relates is “a matter of public interest”, whether or not the claim is abusive, whether or not it is meritorious.
• To any claim brought for any purpose or with any intention. The claim does not have to be brought to silence critical speech – it can be a good faith action intended only to vindicate reputation or protect privacy.
• To claims which are scrupulously and properly conducted, without any intention to harass or inconvenience the defendant.
• To claims brought by any kind of claimant against any kind of defendant. It applies to “paradigm SLAPP claims” – those brought by rich claimants against poor defendants – but also to claims by poor claimants against rich defendants. An oligarch bullying a blogger is treated in the same way as an ordinary person claiming against a powerful media organisation.

It is important to understand how the concept of “public interest” works in this context. It has been widely interpreted by the courts and goes far beyond obvious and established categories such as politics, corruption, crime and terrorism. And the test will be whether the subject matter of the expression relates to a matter of public interest, not whether it in fact advances the public interest. Inaccurate claims or conspiracy theories concerning, for example, political corruption will attract the initial procedural protections of the Bill.

If the subject matter of the claim relates to a matter of public interest, then the defendant is entitled, as of right, to a stay of the proceedings pending the hearing of an application for “early determination”. On such an application, even if the defendant is unsuccessful, the claimant is not entitled to costs. The problems with the Bill are discussed in detail in this blog post, “The Anti-SLAPP Bill: an unfocused invitation to expense and abuse”. The Canadian legislation has given rise to substantially increased costs and substantial delays. It has been said to be “in desperate need of a makeover, if not repeal and replacement.”[4]

SLAPP claims against individuals

SLAPP claims against individuals who cannot join recognised regulators would not be covered by a statutory provision in terms of section 40. The protection of such individuals is outside our campaigning remit. It gives rise to complex and difficult issues.

As mentioned above, there is no informed consensus as to how prevalent such claims are. Only a small number have come before the English Courts. However, Anti-SLAPP campaigners have suggested that most SLAPPs do not result in the issue of legal proceedings and that there are hundreds, perhaps, thousands of cases in which publication of public interest material has been “chilled”. There has been no independent investigation of such claims and very few examples have been given. However, if there is such a problem it is not addressed by provisions (such as the 2023 Act and the Bill) which deal only with issued claims.

There are a number of possible approaches to these issues. In particular it may be possible to devise a system based on the “unjustified threats” regime which applies in intellectual property cases and which is set out in the Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Act 2017 (“the 2017 Act”). This restricts IP owners from making threats of infringement proceedings unless those threats are justified based on the owner’s IP rights validly existing. The regime allows a “person aggrieved” to bring a claim and seek remedies including a declaration, damages and an injunction to restrain further threats. The aim is to prevent rights holders from achieving, through threatening correspondence, the same commercial effect as an injunction without having to prove infringement in court.

It appears that the mischief to which the “unjustified threats” legislation is directed is similar to that complained of by Anti-SLAPP campaigners. The complaint in both areas is of threatening correspondence being used to restrain activity by the defendant without going to court. The position is not exactly the same in the two situations and careful consideration would have to be given to “unjustified threats” in the SLAPP context. Notably, the 2017 Act was the result of reports by the Law Commission[5] and we endorse the view previously expressed by the current Justice Secretary[6] that Anti-SLAPP legislation is a suitable subject for Law Commission consideration. Legislation needs to be carefully balanced and tailored to meet the actual problems identified. If not, it is likely to make it more difficult for victims of unlawful press conduct to vindicate their rights and to generate additional legal costs for meritorious defendants.

Notes

1. The trigger for this was the assassination of the Maltese investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia in 2017.
2. Kamal v Tax Policy Associates Ltd & Anor [2026] EWHC 551 (KB) (the claim was struck out and judgment entered for the defendant under the ordinary court rules, a declaration that the claim was a statutory SLAPP was also granted)
3. For a full exposition of this proposal see LSE Media Policy Brief 12, “The New UK Model of Press Regulation” [pdf]
4. Benchwood Builders v Prescott 2025 ONCA 171 [14].
5. Patents, Trade Marks and Design Rights: Groundless Threats (2014) Law Commission Report No.346 and Patents, Trade Marks and Design Rights: Groundless Threats (2015) Law Commission Report No.360.
6. And supported by The Society of Media Lawyers, a body consisting of experienced lawyers who act for both claimants and defendants in media cases.