More than 60 experts call for the Anti-SLAPP Bill to be amended

Over sixty editors, journalists, writers, publishers, academics, and experts have written to Justice Secretary Alex Chalk KC MP calling on the Government to support amendments to the Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill. Signatories include the editors of DMG Media, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Times and The Sunday Times, Private Eye, and The Economist.

“We are closer than ever to establishing a standalone anti-SLAPP law, but we cannot let its  roximity stop us from ensuring the Bill does what it is intended to: protecting public interest speech from being silenced by SLAPPs,” the letter said.

The signatories are calling on the Government to address the fundamental flaw at the centre of the Bill’s early dismissal mechanism that requires a court to make a subjective judgement as to the intent of a SLAPP claimant in order to determine whether the legal action can be identified as a SLAPP. They echo concerns raised by the Law Society and MPs, that identifying a claimant’s intent “is a notoriously difficult, time-intensive, expensive and uncertain process that would undermine the effective operation of the protections the law provides.”

The signatories highlight concerns that deficiencies of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act (ECCTA) were previously made clear to the Government, but yet have been replicated in full in the Anti-SLAPP Bill.

“If enacted in its current form, the Bill risks becoming an ineffective, inaccessible, and ultimately redundant legal instrument,” the letter said. “[B]y making a small but important amendment, we can ensure courts and judges are able to make timely, consistent and evidence-based determinations of SLAPP cases before legal costs have accrued.”

The signatories also called for the definition of public interest in the Bill to be refined in order to further strengthen the legislation. “We believe the current definition of public interest could introduce unnecessary uncertainty, which must be avoided for this Bill to be effective”, they said.

“[A]n Anti-SLAPP Law must be accessible, simple and trusted by public watchdogs to effectively protect free expression,” the signatories said.

Katharine Viner, Editor-in-Chief, The Guardian said: “SLAPPs threaten free speech and a free press by enabling those with deep pockets to harass, intimidate and exhaust critics with the goal of deterring public interest journalism. We welcome the work to get a workable anti-SLAPP law in place, with these small changes being vital to making that happen.”

Catherine Belton, International investigative reporter, Washington Post, Author, Putin’s People, said: “It’s really important that after all the crusading work by NGOs and MPs, journalists don’t end up with a law that is ultimately ineffective or worse, counterproductive, in combating SLAPPs. In its current form, the proposed legislation would not improve the situation for any journalist and instead more likely strengthen any claimant’s hand, as it will be near impossible to prove a claimant’s intent. This law must be urgently amended, otherwise we risk shooting ourselves in the foot.”


Here is the full letter to Alex Chalk KC MP sent on 10 April 2024:

Rt. Hon. Alex Chalk KC MP, Secretary of State for Justice
Rt. Hon. Rishi Sunak MP, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Rt. Hon. Lucy Frazer KC MP, Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
Ms. Julia Lopez MP, Minister of State (Department for Culture, Media and Sport)
Rt. Hon. Lord Cameron, Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs
Ms. Shabana Mahmood MP, Shadow Labour Secretary of State for Justice
Rt. Hon. Alistair Carmichael MP, Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for Home Affairs, Justice and Northern
Ireland
Mr. Chris Stephens MP, Shadow SNP Spokesperson (Justice)
Mr. Paul Philip, Chief Executive, Solicitors Regulation Authority
Mr. Mark Neale, Director-General, The Bar Standards Board
Mr. Matthew Hill, Chief Executive, Legal Services Board
Mr. Michael O’Flaherty, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights
Ms. Teresa Ribeiro, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Representative on Freedom of the
Media
Mr. Volker Türk, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Ms. Irene Khan, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of
Opinion and Expression

10 April 2024

Dear Rt. Hon. Alex Chalk KC MP,

We are contacting you ahead of the committee stage of the Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill, a Private Members’ Bill brought by Wayne David MP to support the small but crucial amendment proposed by the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition. We are closer than ever to establishing a standalone anti-SLAPP law, but we cannot let its proximity stop us from ensuring the Bill does what it is intended to: protecting public interest speech from being silenced by SLAPPs. As drafted we fear the Bill falls short of the necessary protections needed to achieve this goal.

Since the anti-SLAPP amendment was published in the Economic Crimes and Corporate Transparency Act (ECCTA) last year, stakeholders on both sides of the SLAPP debate have raised concerns about the efficacy of the Government’s approach. The deficiencies of the ECCTA’s anti-SLAPP provisions have been made clear to the Government, yet they have been reproduced in their entirety in the Private Members’ Bill. If enacted in its current form, the Bill risks becoming an ineffective, inaccessible, and ultimately redundant legal instrument.

However, there is still an opportunity to remedy this to ensure it is a Bill that will serve its purpose. Currently, the definition of a SLAPP requires a court to make a subjective judgement as to the intent of a claimant in order to determine if the legal action in question can be identified as a SLAPP. This is a notoriously difficult, time-intensive, expensive and uncertain process that would undermine the effective operation of the protections the law provides. Using the subjective test will hinder the early dismissal mechanism that sits at the heart of this Bill, but by making a small but important amendment, we can ensure courts and judges are able to make timely, consistent and evidence-based determinations of SLAPP cases before legal costs have accrued.

As the Bill comes before the Bill Committee for scrutiny, we call for the Government to support amendments to Clause 2(1) to replace the subjective test with an objective test. This would give SLAPP targets greater certainty, while also providing the clarity courts need to effectively apply the new mechanism.

Refining the definition of public interest in the Bill would further strengthen this piece of legislation. We believe the current definition of public interest could introduce unnecessary uncertainty, which must be avoided for this Bill to be effective. While the examples in the Bill are only illustrative, it is vital that the definition demonstrates the breadth and diversity of public interest reporting to give confidence to public watchdogs.

This close to establishing an Anti-SLAPP Law that is universal in scope, we must ensure it can live up to the expectations of everyone who speaks out in the public interest. Only then will free expression be protected.

We hope that you agree that an Anti-SLAPP Law must be accessible, simple and trusted by public watchdogs to effectively protect free expression.

Kind regards,

Editorial and media senior management
Rozina Breen, CEO, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ)
Paul Dacre, Editor-in-Chief, DMG media
Chris Evans, Editor, The Telegraph
Tony Gallagher, Editor, The Times
Alessandra Galloni, Editor-in-Chief, Reuters
Isabel Hilton, Co-Chair, TBIJ
Ian Hislop, Editor, Private Eye
John Micklethwait, Editor-in-Chief, Bloomberg News
Zanny Minton Beddoes, Editor-in-Chief, The Economist
Paul Radu, Co-Executive Director, OCCRP
Richard Sambrook, Co-Chair, TBIJ
Aman Sethi, Editor-in-Chief, openDemocracy
Drew Sullivan, Publisher, Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP)
Ben Taylor, Editor, The Sunday Times
Emma Tucker, Editor-in-Chief, The Wall Street Journal
Ted Verity, Editor, The Daily Mail
Katharine Viner, Editor-in-Chief, The Guardian
Paul Webster, Editor, The Observer
Franz Wild, Editor, TBIJ

Associations, foundations and media support organisations
Lionel Barber, Chairman, The Wincott Foundation
Sarah Baxter, Director, Marie Colvin Center for International Reporting
Matthew Caruana Galizia, Director, The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation
Anthony Fargo, Director, Center for International Media Law and Policy Studies
George Freeman, Executive Director, Media Law Resource Center
Alexander Papachristou, Executive Director of the Cyrus R. Vance Center for International Justice
Michelle Stanistreet, General Secretary, National Union of Journalists
Sayra Tekin, Director of Legal, News Media Association

Lawyers and other legal professionals
Rupert Cowper-Coles, Partner and Head of Media, RPC
Matthew Dando, Partner and Head of Media Litigation, Wiggin LLP
David Hooper, Media Lawyer and writer on SLAPPs, Author, Buying Silence
Matthew Jury, Managing Partner, McCue Jury & Partners LLP
Baroness Helena Kennedy of the Shaws KC, Director, International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute
Nicola Namdjou, General Counsel at Global Witness
Gill Phillips, Editorial Legal Consultant
David Price KC
Pia Sarma, Editorial Legal Director, Times Newspapers Ltd
Mark Stephens CBE, Lawyer, Co-Chair International Bar Association Human Rights Committee, Trustee, Index on Censorship
Samantha Thompson, Media Defence Lawyer, RPC

Writers, journalists and authors
Catherine Belton, International investigative reporter, Washington Post, Author, Putin’s People
Tom Bergin, Author and investigative journalist, Reuters
Richard Brooks, Journalist, Private Eye
Bill Browder, Author, financier, and Head of Global Magnitsky Justice campaign
Tom Burgis, Author and investigations correspondent, The Guardian
Paul Caruana Galizia, Reporter, Tortoise Media
Bill Emmott, Journalist, author, and former editor-in-chief of The Economist
Peter Geoghegan, Journalist and author
George Greenwood, Investigations Reporter, The Times
Eliot Higgins, Author and journalist
Edward Lucas, Author, European and transatlantic security consultant and fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA)
Thomas Mayne, Researcher and writer
Trevor Phillips, Broadcaster, writer and chair of Index on Censorship
Clare Rewcastle Brown, Journalist

Publishers
José Borghino, Secretary General, International Publishers Association
Dan Conway, CEO, Publishers Association
Andrew Franklin, Founder and publisher, Profile Books and trustee of Index on Censorship
Arabella Pike, Publishing Director, HarperCollins Publishers
Nicola Solomon, Chief Executive, Society of Authors

Academics
Peter Coe, Associate Professor in Law, Birmingham Law School, University of Birmingham
John Heathershaw, Professor of International Relations, University of Exeter
Andrew Scott, Associate Professor, London School of Economics and Political Science
Ursula Smartt, Media Lawyer, Associate Professor of Law, Northeastern University London


Media Contacts
For any questions or quotes from the Coalition, or to organise any media engagement on this, please contact [email protected]

Notes
● The letter was coordinated by the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, which is an informal working group established in January 2021, co-chaired by the Foreign Policy Centre, Index on Censorship and CliDef. It comprises a number of freedom of expression, whistleblowing, anti-corruption and transparency organisations, as well as media lawyers, researchers and academics who are researching, monitoring and highlighting cases of legal intimidation and SLAPPs, as well as seeking to develop remedies for mitigation and redress.
● For more information about the Coalition – www.antislapp.uk
● The letter sent to Alex Chalk KC MP with the full signatory list – https://antislapp.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Anti-SLAPP-Amendment-Letter-to-Alex-Chalk-KC-MP-1.pdf
● The Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill – https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-04/0021/230021.pdf
● For more details about the proposed amendment – https://antislapp.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Amendment-Text.pdf
● The UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition response to the publication of the Anti-SLAPP Private Members’ Bill – https://antislapp.uk/2024/02/20/anti-slapp-pmb-amendments/
● The UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition response to the publication of the ECCTA – https://antislapp.uk/2023/10/26/a-landmark-moment-but-we-cant-stop-here/

Alexei Navalny dead

When Alexei Navalny returned to Russia after the Kremlin had him poisoned with novichok, he took a bet that Vladimir Putin would not dare to kill the man who was on the blackest of black lists. Today Navalny lost that bet.

I met Navalny twice, once in Strasbourg and once in Moscow, and had had a long Zoom conversation with him. He was a truly extraordinary man: impossibly brave, charismatic, pig-headed, funny, great. To me, he symbolised the idea of a Russia without fascism, free and democratic. Von Stauffenberg dared to try to kill Hitler but he also did something else, he kept the idea of another Germany alive in 1944. Navalny dared to stand up to Putin and kept the idea of another Russia alive in 2024.

He could be extremely annoying. The first time we met was at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg where his lawyers were suing Russia from stopping him standing against Putin. Hearing concluded, he had ten minutes to talk to me for a BBC Panorama we were making about him called Taking On Putin. Cameraman Seamas McCracken was fixing mikes on lapels when I explained that Seamas was from Northern Ireland. Seamas stopped work. Navalny was greatly amused as precious seconds slipped away while I apologised and said that Seamas was from the north of Ireland. Only when Seamas was happy did the interview happen. But what sticks in the mind was not my Irish pal sticking up for his rights but Navalny’s amusement at my difficulty.

In Moscow, he and his supporters were under continuing attack. One of his team had been hit over the head with an iron bar, another beaten black and blue by silent thugs. And yet what you got was the real thing: sardonic, amused Navalny, punching words out at the little man in the Kremlin. Is Russia a police state?, I asked him. “Absolutely,” he replied.

He started out as a lawyer representing clients who had been wronged by Russia’s corruption engine. For a time around 2008, he dallied with the far-right, calling Chechens “cockroaches” and, later, upsetting Ukrainians by saying that Crimea is Russian. It is Ukrainian. But then he dumped that dark nonsense and set out the case for a liberal, democratic Russia.

His big moment came in 2012 when Putin switched his patsy, Dmitry Medvedev, out of the Kremlin so he could get back in again and another Russia hit the streets in their hundreds of thousands. Charismatic, funny, bitter, Navalny called Putin’s political vehicle “The Party of Crooks and Thieves” and he became a kind of rock star. One time, the police arrested him, twisting his arm behind his back so he howled in pain, before locking him in a police van. That video was seen millions of times.

Navalny got going, making brilliant videos detailing corruption in Russia. Two stand out: Putin’s Palace, which got more than a hundred million views on YouTube, setting out in fine details how his oligarchs paid for a naff palace by the Black Sea with golden toilet roll holders, and a second on his poisoning. In it, Navalny had the balls to pretend being a Kremlin high-up and called one of the poisoners. The hapless goon coughed up to the mechanism of assassination, that they lined the seams of his underpants with novichok.

He went back to Russia daring Putin to murder him. A show-trial followed, the only thing that was real was the moment when Navalny, from his glass-walled dock, cradled his hands into the shape of a heart for his wife, Yulia.

I hope that Russia will wake up from its zombie state, that Navalny will get his revenge from beyond the grave but I doubt it. Still, he lost his life standing up for another Russia and his memory will shine in history.

Farewell, my fond and foolish friend.

Moments of Freedom winner announced

We’re delighted to announce that the Index on Censorship Moment of Freedom 2023 is the moment the young Afghan journalist Spozhmai Maani touched down in Paris after fleeing the Taliban to continue her career in Europe.

It is almost exactly a year since Spozhmai first contacted Index. Her email told the grim story of a young broadcast journalist forced to flee her country: “Due to my work as a journalist, I have confronted many things from house raids, serious threats, online bullying, digital and cyber-attacks and harassment,” she wrote. In her work as a presenter and reporter Spozhmai had already been the target of threats from the Taliban. But after the extremist group seized power in 2021, women journalists were forced off air and Spozhmai went into hiding before escaping to neighbouring Pakistan.

But her nightmare was not over. In Pakistan, the harassment continued, this time simply because she was an Afghan. After more than a year of living in fear and unable to earn her living as a journalist, Spozhmai wrote to us in desperation. The only way we could realistically help was to pay her for her work as a journalist, which is how Spozhmai became a contributor to Index, writing articles about the plight of journalists and artists in her home country.

Partly thanks to the support of Index and other free expression organisations, but mainly through her own determination, Spozhmai was finally able to reach safety in Paris in June 2023. The picture of her smiling in front of the Eiffel Tower said everything about this moment of freedom. We are proud to have played a small part in her story.

Afghanistan’s tragedy is that Spozhmai’s story is just one of many. It is incredibly difficult to be a journalist in Afghanistan under the Taliban where all dissent has been crushed, even more so for female journalists. Meanwhile, the UK government continues to fail to honour its promises to provide a safe route for journalists wishing to come to the UK. While other countries, including France, Germany, Ireland and even Kosovo provide refuge, the UK has kept its doors closed. We heard this week that another Index contributor, Salma Niazi, editor of Afghan Times, has arrived safely in Dublin. These journalists will make a significant contribution to the intellectual life of their host countries. The UK is diminished as a result.

Over the past year, Index has been inspired by journalists such as Spozhmai and Salma to organise a series of events to raise money to help their colleagues. Working with Zahra Joya, founder of Rukhshana Media, campaigner Zehra Zaidi and Katherine Schofield, Head of Music at King’s College, University of London we have helped develop a network of support. Events at Somerville College Oxford and King’s College chapel in London have helped raise awareness of the ongoing situation in Afghanistan. We have also worked closely with Alex Crawford, Special Correspondent at Sky News, who has done as much as anyone to publicise the ongoing struggle of women in Afghanistan.

Spozhmai told Index: “I am deeply honoured to receive the ‘Moments of Freedom’ award from Index on Censorship. I am grateful for the recognition and the support of everyone who voted – your belief in the power of free expression fuels my commitment to making a positive impact.”

2024, the year that four billion go the polls

Happy New Year – I hope…

Entering a new year typically encourages us to reflect on the past 12 months and consider the impact of what is likely to happen in the next 12. Depressingly, 2023 was yet another year marked by authoritarians clamping down on freedom of expression and harnessing the power of digital technology to persecute, harass and undermine those who challenge them.

Not only did the tyrants, despots and their allies attempt to again crack down on any seemingly independent thought within their own territories, several also sought to weaponise the legal system at home and abroad through the use of SLAPPs. Several EU member states, especially the Republic of Ireland, as well as the United Kingdom have found themselves at the centre of these legal attacks on freedom of expression.

SLAPPs weren’t the only threat to freedom of expression in 2023 though – from the crackdown on protesters in Iran, to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the continuing repressive actions of Putin and Lukashenka, the end of freedom of expression in Hong Kong, the increasingly restrictions imposed by Modi, the latest war in the Middle East and the ongoing attacks on journalists in South America.

My depressing list could go on and on. However, we desperately need to find some hope in the world, so Index on Censorship ended 2023 with our campaign entitled “Moments of Freedom”, highlighting the good in the world so let’s carry on with that optimism. A new year brings new beginnings after all. So let’s focus on the new moments of light which will hopefully touch our lives this year.

Half the world’s population will go to the polls this year. That’s an extraordinary four billion people. Each with their own aspirations for their families, hopes for their country and dreams of a more secure world.

As a politician it should come as no surprise to anyone that I love elections. The best campaigns are politics at their purest, when the needs and aspirations of the electorate should be centre stage. Elections provide a moment when values are on the line. How people want to be governed, what rights they wish to advance and how they hold the powerful to account. These are all actioned through the ballot box.

There are elections taking place in countries significant for Index because of their likely impact on freedom of expression and the impact the results may have on the current internationally agreed norms, including Taiwan, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, South Africa, Russia, Brazil, the European Union, the USA and the United Kingdom. And given current events we can only hope for elections in Israel to be added to the list. The list goes on with each election posing different questions and the results having a different impact on the current world order.

Many other human rights organisations will talk about the importance of these elections for international stability, and rightly so. At Index we will focus on what these elections mean for the dissidents, journalists, artists and academics. Our unique network of reporters and commentators around the world will allow us to bring you the hidden stories taking place and will highlight the threats and opportunities each result poses to freedom of expression. As with 2023, 2024 will be a year where Index hands a megaphone to dissidents so their voice is amplified.

The rallying cry for 2024 must be: “Your freedom needs you!” If you are one of the four billion remember that your ballot is the shield against would-be despots and tyrants. It is the ultimate democratic duty and responsibility and the consequences go far beyond your immediate neighbourhood – so use it and use it wisely.

SUPPORT INDEX'S WORK