Steven Heffer’s article is off the mark in a number of ways. In light of the recent judgment by the ECHR in MGN v UK on excessive success fees, along with the damning report by the House of Commons culture, media and sport select committee and the Jackson review, it is absolutely inconceivable that the status quo on CFA success fees or libel costs can continue.

Mr Heffer has failed entirely to engage with the concerns of the Libel Reform Campaign’s coalition of over 40 civil society groups including scientists, medics and NGOs over the expense of libel actions. In the Jackson review, the average cost for the 20 most expensive trials was £753,677. Evidence from Oxford University shows defamation cases in the UK are up to 140 times the European average. Mr Heffer states that ‘most’ cases where defendants pay substantial costs ‘should have been settled at the outset’. His argument is backed up with no evidence.

As for the trope that libel tourism is not a problem, we would point lawyers to some of the many websites now blocked from the UK, including Kyivpost.com, and newspapers considering withdrawing their publications from sale here. If there is no problem, why did Barack Obama sign into law the Speech Act aimed primarily at protecting American citizens from our High Court?

This isn’t academic; it’s a fundamental free speech issue. Reform does not necessarily mean the abolition of CFAs, but it does require the recognition by some claimant lawyers that their lucrative profession is having a damaging effect on free speech.

Jonathan Heawood, English PEN; John Kampfner, Index on Censorship; Tracey Brown, Sense About Science; Louise Hayman, the Independent; Gill Phillips, Guardian Media Group; Pia Sarma, The Times; Mark Stephens, Finers Stephens Innocent