The House Opinion Article | We must stamp out SLAPPs for good

The Royal Courts of Justice in London (Glenys Kill/Alamy)

3 min read5 min

This is why we announced our Private Members’ Bills in both houses earlier this month to stamp out strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs.

Abusive legal threats and actions disincentivise speaking out on issues in the public interest. If people such as journalists, academics, local campaigners and victims of crime – including survivors of sexual and gender-based violence – have been threatened into silence, they will stop communicating on issues that are important to them. Not only do they suffer, we all do, as there is less information in the public domain upon which we can depend to play a role in society around us.

The purpose of our bills is straightforward: to create an early-stage filter mechanism that allows courts to distinguish quickly between legitimate claims and abusive ones. Where a claim has genuine merit, it should proceed through the courts in the normal way. But where a claim is designed primarily to suppress public-interest speech through excessive cost and pressure, judges should have the power to identify it at an early stage and bring it to an end before irreparable harm is done.

Such abuse is not new. The term SLAPPs has been used since the late 1990s and countries across the globe have slowly moved to shield their legal systems from such abuse. 

Around 40 US states have brought forward anti-SLAPP laws, with similar progress seen in three Canadian provinces. Last month marked the transposition deadline for the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive, which established minimum standards for member states to establish their own laws. And, last year, the Scottish government responded to a public consultation on the issue, stating: “the law should be reformed to address SLAPPs and would intend to do so at the next legislative opportunity”.

While we both represent the same party, this is not a partisan issue

Advertisement

While we both represent the same party, this is not a partisan issue. Over the last few years we have seen parliamentarians from across the political spectrum call for action on this issue, whether that means speaking out in debates or writing to the government as the Labour backbench, Tory Party, Lib Dems and Green Party did earlier this year, alongside a letter signed by 111 peers. In the last parliament, the then Labour MP Sir Wayne David introduced a similar bill which only failed due to the early calling of the general election. The Labour government has also indicated that it supports the introduction of legislation against SLAPPs and that it was only the lack of parliamentary time that prevented it from being included in this session’s King’s Speech.

Across the country, people speak out every day on issues that matter to their communities, their professions and the wider public. They expose wrongdoing, challenge powerful interests, raise concerns and contribute to democratic debate. In many cases, it is only after these people have taken the courageous step to speak out that others, be they the police, regulators or other bodies, have been able to act. These voices must be protected at all costs – and ensuring they can access justice and defend their speech is the least that we, as parliamentarians, can do.

The aim is simple: to give people a fair chance to defend themselves and greater confidence in the justice system. We hope our colleagues in both Chambers will support this necessary reform. 

Baroness Stowell is a Conservative peer and John Whittingdale is Conservative MP for Maldon