Top libel lawyers successfully lobbied against new legislation to protect public interest reporting from pernicious lawsuits.
The Society of Media Lawyers met with both the previous Conservative government in 2024 and the new Labour government last year, and allegedly heavily lobbied via letters to ministers and MPs. The group includes representatives from prominent claimant specialist media law firms like Mishcon de Reya and Carter-Ruck.
Two lots of reporting this week from the New Statesman, with Democracy for Sale, and The Bureau of Investigative Journalism used Freedom of Information document releases to reveal how the Society of Media Lawyers “aggressively pushed back on anti-SLAPP legislation”. (Scroll down for the full response from the Society of Media Lawyers.)
SLAPPs refer to strategic litigation against public participation, meaning expensive lawsuits designed to intimidate journalists or other critical voices into silence.
TBIJ reported: “London’s libel lawyers used a private meeting with government officials to cast themselves as underdogs in the battle over abusive lawsuits…”
Minutes showed the Society of Media Lawyers used the 2024 government meeting to argue the issue of SLAPPs was being exaggerated by the media and officials “should not act on SLAPPs in haste”.
The meeting notes said: “Recognise that the press shouldn’t have free reign, e.g., phone hacking.”
They said there have been “unpleasant features including attacks on lawyers and anti-lawyering” in the press.
And the meeting heard the media could “claim public interest in anything e.g. anorexia in actress.”
Charlotte Leslie, the former Conservative MP who successfully defended a defamation claim from party donor Mohamed Amersi, said: “It’s clear from these documents that the Society of Media Lawyers conducted a persistent lobbying campaign to kill off any prospect of sensible legislation that could threaten the UK’s lucrative racket in libel lawfare…”
A source close to the Government’s discussions on libel reform told The New Statesman: “The Carter-Rucks of this world have successfully scared the civil servants into thinking that it’s too difficult to do anything about SLAPPs.”
The source was speaking generally, but Carter-Ruck responded: “We would do nothing of the sort… We agree that the issues surrounding so-called SLAPPs are properly a matter of public interest, and would welcome a sensible and balanced debate about these issues.”
The Society of Media Lawyers told The New Statesman it has “written a very limited number of letters” to policymakers and that its “position is informed, expert and measured”.
SLAPPs over stories relating to economic crime are covered by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act, which passed into law in 2023, but a standalone bill to cover the reporting of wider topics has long been urged by media and law figures including national newspaper editors.
A Private Members’ Bill brought by Labour MP Wayne David in 2024 was backed by the Government and had begun to pass through Parliament but disappeared after the last general election was called.
While it was live it faced lobbying from the Society of Media Lawyers for being “entirely one-sided”, resulting in a Ministry of Justice civil servant saying they were “personally more concerned about their strength of feeling on the bill”, according to The New Statesman.
Weeks after the general election in July 2024, the Society of Media Lawyers wrote to the incoming justice ministers to argue the SLAPP debate was based on “a misleading narrative”
Pia Sarma, editorial legal director for The Times and chair of the Media Lawyers Association, told Press Gazette: “I think it is hugely important that this country puts its best foot forward and tries to make simple legislation.
“I think the debate around SLAPPs has been entrenched on both sides. I think the claimant side tends to focus on access to justice and characterises the campaign as being an attempt to stop people getting vindication for their damage to reputation, which it absolutely is not.
“And on the other side, you have people who are traditionally defence lawyers saying that there should be kind of an open field for trying to stop claims, and in fact the balance has to be somewhere in between. You need to allow proper claims to proceed, but the focus of this is really a quick, effective and cheap process to chuck out claims which genuinely are trying to clamp down on public interest reporting and public participation…”
She said what was needed was “a simple system where you put public interest speech first” and where judges can hear anti-SLAPP applications quickly, and inexpensively without the need for publishers to rack up huge costs.
Calls for anti-SLAPP legislation have continued this year with a letter from editors and other senior industry figures urging “universal anti-SLAPP provisions” to be included in the King’s Speech held this week amid continued cases of “wealthy and powerful” claimants “misusing” the British justice system.
However nothing was included in the King’s Speech.
Sayra Tekin, general counsel of the News Media Association which represents the UK’s major national and regional newsbrands, said: “We are disappointed that the Government has not used the King’s Speech to take forward its longstanding and widely supported commitment to legislate against SLAPPs. A suitable legislative vehicle must now be identified as a matter of priority.”
Nik Williams, co-chair of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition which was formed five years ago, said the group was “deeply disappointed”.
“This omission effectively means efforts to tackle this issue remain stalled, despite previous commitments by Government officials to the contrary, and crucially leaves too many people vulnerable to being silenced for speaking out in the public interest.
“However, considering there is strong cross-party and cross-chamber support we hope other MPs or peers will take the step the Government has not and move to stamp out SLAPPs and protect democracy.”
Response from the Society of Media Lawyers
Dear Press Gazette
We refer to the article you published on 15 May headed “Top libel lawyers ‘killed off’ legislation to protect public interest reporting” which relates to the SML and which lifts from articles recently published in the New Statesman and by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
TSML neither lobbied for – nor do we believe that we can claim credit for- the lack of new legislation regarding SLAPPs. It has written a handful of letters over more than three years to the Ministry of Justice (the “MoJ”) and Parliamentarians and had two online meetings with officials from the MoJ, always offering its expertise and experience in respect of the formulation of policy in this area.
It is true that TSML has questioned the evidential basis regarding the extent of the SLAPP problem and highlighted technical issues with the proposed reforms. This material is all in the public domain and has received no meaningful response. These would appear to be crucial matters for policy makers to bear in mind.
In fact TSML has not denied that there are some problem claims, nor is it necessarily opposed to potential reform. What it has said is that the matter should be referred, as David Lammy has previously suggested, to the Law Commission so that the evidence can be properly assessed and the potential effect of reform properly analysed. That appears to be a pretty modest proposal. It is not clear why it would be opposed by anyone.
We agree with Pia Sarma of The Times that “it is hugely important that this country puts its best foot forward” and that there are issues on both sides. We hope that our contribution continues to inform the debate.
Yours faithfully
The Society of Media Lawyers
Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog
