A third private member’s bill has revived the stalled campaign against strategic litigation against public participation, known as SLAPPs, with a fourth measure expected soon. Baroness Stowell of Beeston, a former civil servant and BBC executive, introduced the Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill in the House of Lords this week. The two-page bill aims to create a mechanism for judges to throw out legal claims early if they’re deemed aimed at gagging publications in the public interest.
Stowell described SLAPPs as “a stain on our legal system.” She received support from the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, the Media Lawyers Association and the News Media Association in preparing the bill. It’s the third such private member’s bill introduced in the five years since the UK’s anti-SLAPP campaign mobilized in earnest.
Related: PM unveils major homebuying reforms
A draft private member’s bill from Conservative MP Sir John Whittingdale is expected to cover similar ground. Campaigners hope the two-pronged approach — along with government backing — will give this effort a better shot than previous attempts. A bill from Labour’s Wayne David died when parliament dissolved for the 2024 election.
Stowell’s bill is shorter than its predecessors, partly because it drops a page-long attempt to define a SLAPP case. It states that the Civil Procedure Rules must include a provision allowing a defendant in a claim “relating to any publication, statement or activity carried out in the right to free expression” to apply for early determination if the publication concerns a matter of public interest.
Claims would be stayed while the early determination application is in progress. They must be dismissed if the claimant fails to show it’s “more likely than not that the claim would succeed at trial.” But claims won’t be dismissed if the “harm suffered or likely to be suffered” from the publication “outweighs the public interest in dismissing the claim before trial.” Successful applicants for early dismissal must get costs; unsuccessful or partially successful applicants can’t recover theirs.
Related: Fintech firm dumps law firm panel system
Whittingdale’s bill “will be essentially the same in terms of the mechanism and costs,” the Anti-SLAPP Coalition said.
Pia Sarma, chair of the Media Lawyers Association and editorial legal director at The Times, backed the effort. “Anti-SLAPP legislation prevents the weaponisation of the courts to silence public discourse,” she said. “Legislation need not curb access to justice and an early dismissal mechanism can act as both deterrent and shield.”
Not everyone agrees. The rival Society of Media Lawyers, whose members include prominent claimant firms, opposes the proposal. Vice chair Iain Wilson, a partner at London firm Brett Wilson, argued that defamation law was overhauled in 2014 and is “already finely balanced between claimant and defendant rights.” He said there’s “no need to reinvent the wheel.” Provisions already exist to strike out claims that lack merit or are abusive, he added, calling an extra stage of litigation an added complexity and cost.
Related: Virginia Enacts Paid Family Leave Program Law
Wilson also noted that most campaigners “appear to have either finally accepted that relatively few ‘SLAPP claims’ are actually issued in court or have declined to produce evidence” that courts are flooded with them. Their recent focus has shifted to how the threat of legal action can have a chilling effect. If that’s the real problem, Wilson said, “legislation focused strictly on claims that have already been issued in court seems pointless.” He added it’s “disappointing that politicians seem so susceptible to media lobbying designed to soften defamation law” while showing little interest in consulting lawyers who act for victims of media abuse.
All eyes are now on Lord Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy, who has pledged to introduce anti-SLAPP legislation when parliamentary time allows. In the weeks ahead, though, he may have other priorities.
