Courts are to be given greater powers to dismiss strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), which are brought to stifle free speech by intimidating campaigners and journalists.
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said last week it will introduce a three-part test to identify SLAPPS―is the case against activity in the public interest, is there evidence of abuse of process, such as a barrage of aggressive letters on a trivial matter; and does the case have sufficient merit? Cases can be stricken out immediately or progressed but with a cap placed on costs to protect individuals from pricey legal battles.
The MoJ has also published the results of its call for evidence on SLAPPs, which found media organisations have been deterred from publishing information on specific individuals or subjects, including exposing serious wrongdoing or corruption, because of the possible legal costs.
Mark Fenhalls QC, Chair of the Bar Council, said the measures on SLAPPS were ‘timely and welcome to curb the abuse of court proceedings by those with the power and wealth to use the justice system to intimidate others’.
Simkins partner Gideon Benaim said: ‘No one disputes that cases which are genuinely abusive ought to be dispensed with at the earliest stage possible.
‘However, it is important that a case does not become a 'SLAPP' simply because a journalist or publisher asserts that there is a public interest angle, even though a claimant has a legitimate reason to seek to enforce their legal right. As anyone who has been involved in defamation and privacy law knows, public interest justifications from the media for proposed stories are raised in almost every situation, sometimes tenuously.
‘The key for the government in making any legislative change will be to carefully balance the various competing rights. Unfortunately, I suspect that this is easier said than done.’
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
