SLAPPed down

SLAPPs exist. I know, because I have been on the end of several almost comically sententious (and baseless) legal letters composed solely to ‘distress and deter’. Not only at the Gazette, but also in my previous life as an investigative financial journalist.

I bet you could name the law firms that sent them. Some media lawyers are extraordinarily accomplished sophists (a compliment!).

Fortunately, in this job I can call on the Law Society’s estimable legal team. SLAPPers can be repulsed – but that often requires a significant expense of time and cost. Smaller and less well resourced media have no such backstop. There is an awful lot you should know, but don’t know, about some very influential people and businesses because defending SLAPPs is so expensive. ‘Win or lose’. (Catch me in the Seven Stars pub behind the RCJ one night and I’ll fill you in.)

That is why it was depressing to see the Society of Media Lawyers (eight of whose 65 members hail from Carter-Ruck alone) berate the Law Society for ‘succumbing to political pressure’ by calling for action on SLAPPs. The SML alludes to a ‘complete absence of credible evidence’ that SLAPPs are a problem. I am reminded of Nelson placing the telescope over his blind eye.

What to do? It is a year since ministers pledged ‘comprehensive and targeted’ anti-SLAPP legislation ‘as soon as parliamentary time allows’. Still we wait.

Anti-SLAPP measures were included in the Economic Crime and Transparency Act, but apply only to cases involving economic crimes. A model anti-SLAPP law has been drafted by campaigners that would allow judges to dismiss cases early on, cap costs and punish vexatious suits with damages. It remains on the shelf.

Bar chair Nick Vineall KC, meanwhile, suggests SLAPPers could face damages for depriving the public of information they deserve to know. Is anyone listening?

Culture secretary Lucy Frazer kicked the can down the road again last month, by announcing a new taskforce that would build on the Economic Crime Bill to ban SLAPPs in British courts. The king’s speech included a pledge of legislation to protect public interest journalism. But that was merely to repeat an earlier promise. Whether we will see anything more this side of a general election is becoming increasingly unclear.