MPs expose 19 victims of abusive SLAPP lawsuits threatening free speech
From environmental campaigners, to abuse survivors, to customers leaving negative reviews, the remarkable range of ordinary people who have faced spurious legal threats was the subject of a parliamentary debate yesterday evening.
Discussing the issue of SLAPPs – abusive lawsuits that threaten free speech – MPs used their parliamentary privilege to reveal the stories of 19 victims of this type of legal action.
“Many think SLAPPs are confined to journalists being threatened by Russian oligarchs,” said Alex Sobel MP introducing the debate. “In fact, the threat is more diverse than ever.”
These so-called SLAPPs (strategic lawsuits against public participation) don’t even need to formally succeed in order to be effective. Even those that don’t reach court can cost hundreds of thousands of pounds to defend – so the simple threat of action is often enough to scare someone into silence.
MPs have discussed the issue using parliamentary privilege before. For our Silenced Stories project in 2024, we gathered various stories that had been suppressed by libel threats and briefed MPs ahead of a backbench debate.
For this week’s debate, alongside our partners at Index on Censorship and the Foreign Policy Centre, we again provided material to MPs who used it to debate the topic. The focus this time was on the extraordinary breadth of SLAPP victims – and why change is needed.
We have been campaigning as part of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition for new legislation to put an end to this type of lawsuit. In June two bills were introduced to parliament which, if passed into law, could do exactly that.
The debating MPs expressed the urgent need for these laws to protect public participation and prevent further wrongful silencing. “The Government’s position is clear: freedom of expression and investigative journalism must never be undermined by abusive litigation,” Minister for Courts Sarah Sackman MP told parliament, adding that it has started to take “the stepping stones towards that universal framework”.
Silencing survivors
Brian Leishman MP raised the experiences of Verity and Lucy Nevitt, sisters who reported allegations of rape and sexual assault. When police said they would take no further action due to “insufficient evidence”, the sisters decided to speak out online to warn others. Leishman told parliament: “Their attacker responded by bringing a legal action against the sisters, based on accusations of misuse of private information, harassment and defamation.”
Cease and desist letters were then sent to the crowdfunding platform where they were raising money for their defence, and to supportive MPs.
After legal costs spiralled, all parties eventually agreed on a settlement that means Lucy and Verity cannot publicly name the man they accused of sexual assault and rape, Leishman told parliament. He quoted Lucy, who said: “It was a really difficult decision…If we had the money we would have gone the whole way…This wasn’t just about us, there are so many other victims out there.”
The sisters founded the Gemini Project in 2018 to support other survivors of abuse and campaign against SLAPPs.
Eye-watering costs
Jess Brown-Fuller MP discussed the experiences of Heidi, who was hit with a legal threat over concern about the quality of the work by a building firm hired to work on her house. She lost a six-figure sum, the MP said. When the Trading Standards Authority told Heidi it was more likely to act if she could find other cases, she posted on social media – only to receive a legal letter alleging defamation, malicious falsehood and harassment.
Brown-Fuller also highlighted a plastic surgery clinic that encouraged customers to leave reviews before pursuing legal action against at least five individuals who “dared to write negative reviews of its service”. Despite raising “legitimate concerns” about the quality of the clinic’s treatment, these customers were threatened with defamation claims worth thousands of pounds, Brown-Fuller said.
Markus Campbell-Savours MP, raised the case of his constituent Jeff Thomson, who moved to Penrith to enjoy his retirement. However, Jeff was faced with the “Penrith pong, a foul odour that periodically hangs over the town”. Residents linked the smell to local manufacturing, although the company involved disputes that it is the only source of the odour, according to Campbell-Savours.
Jeff set up a Facebook group called Fresh AIR for Penrith to create a space for residents to discuss the issue and learn how to respond. As a result, he was threatened with a defamation claim, the MP said, “all because he spoke up on an issue that he and his neighbours cared about”. Campbell-Savours continued: “The truth is that without people like Jeff… nothing changes. Communities rely on them to keep pushing until someone listens.”
Despite the stress and fear of legal costs, Jeff fought back. “The UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition and Index on Censorship helped my constituent in ways I never could, but they need us to act now,” the MP added.
He, alongside many other MPs in the debate, called for parliamentarians to take action: “No constituent should fear being sued simply for speaking about an issue that they believe is wrong. We must ensure that our legal system protects public participation rather than punishes it.”
Head of Investigations
Read more similar news:
Comments:
comments powered by Disqus
