The government has pledged to tackle abusive and threatening litigation by firms and wealthy individuals aimed at stifling debate and scrutiny of their actions by charities and others.

During a House of Commons debate on the use of threatening Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (SLAPPs) courts and legal services minister Sarah Sackman said such action “is an abuse of power and the legal system, designed to shut down scrutiny, not to seek justice”.

“They are brought to harass, intimidate and wear down opponents through financial pressure and psychological strain,” she said adding “It is necessary to tackle it for the integrity of our legal system, to protect freedom of expression and to protect democracy itself”.

During the debate MPs discussed how the tactic is being used against charities, journalists and individuals by those looking to evade scrutiny.

Shadow justice minister Keiran Mullan said that SLAPPs had been used not only on journalists but also “by charity workers who have documented wrongdoing at care homes, by campaigners who have published evidence of environmental harm and by the victims of sexual violence”.

He said: “These cases show how wealthy and powerful overseas actors, including Russian oligarchs, Kremlin-linked figures and large foreign corporations have been able to use or threaten to use English courts to put pressure on those investigating corruption and misconduct.

“We want charities to be able to raise concerns about wrongdoing and survivors of abuse to speak publicly about what happened to them.”

Labour and Cooperative MP Alex Sobel who brought the debate said that SLAPP tactics include “the weaponisation of libel law and data protection claims and the aggressive use of injunctions, which often come hand in hand with other forms of harassment including smear campaigns and surveillance”.

Strengthening the law

The first statutory definition of a SLAPP was made in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 that was introduced by the previous Conservative administration and created a power to strike out abusive claims at an early stage in cases relating to economic crime.

But Sobel said that this law is “ineffective” due to the complexity of SLAPPs and “insufficient due to their narrow focus on economic crime”.

Mullan said that his Party recognises “that those provisions were narrow, but they were a start”.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) advises solicitors and law firms not to bring or “threaten unmeritorious claims or engage in tactics that are intimidatory or otherwise oppressive”.

Among action Sackman is pledging is to “look again” at the SRA’s “enforcement powers and whether it has the tools it needs to charge fines and place disciplinary sanctions on those lawyers who let down the reputation of the profession”.

She added: “That culture change is important, and it needs to be a cross-government initiative. Legislation is not worth the paper it is written on if it is not applied properly.”

Other action includes working with any MPs bringing a private members bill on the issue for “a better definition of harassment, alarm or distress” in the law.

---