Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP) Bill - Clause 1

Questions the introduction of a subjective test in the Bill, suggesting it would create complexity, costs, and delay.

Supports Wayne David's position, arguing that subjectivity is already part of the legal system through reasonable tests.

Ms. Richards supports the Bill to protect freedom of speech and the press from strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). She cites an increase in SLAPP cases involving Russian and Kazakhstani litigants, highlighting examples like those targeting journalists Tom Burgis and Catherine Belton for their critical work on Russia's political elite. She also notes that the Bill would prevent defendants from facing exorbitant legal costs and protect them from harassment by bad-faith actors. She emphasises the need to uphold Britain’s international reputation for upholding the rule of law.

Ms. Begum commends the Bill's aim to protect press freedom but suggests it needs amendments to cover domestic abuse cases fully, particularly in defining public interest. She highlights issues of gendered censorship where powerful men use legal threats to silence survivors of domestic abuse and women accusing them of misconduct. She calls for extending protections beyond civil courts to family courts.

The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde supports the Bill fully, highlighting its importance in protecting freedom of speech. He argues that the current legal system is being exploited by those with financial resources to silence critics through SLAPPs, which effectively gags individuals from publishing or speaking out about issues such as corruption and abuse of power.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick supports the Bill, noting that it addresses a critical issue related to SLAPPs in defamation cases. He emphasises the need for comprehensive legislation to prevent SLAPPs from intimidating individuals and organisations with limited resources. The MP raises concerns about subjective tests potentially complicating proceedings and suggests exploring an objective test to prevent litigation misuse.

Supports the Bill, highlighting its importance in addressing the issue of SLAPPs. Emphasises that these lawsuits are not about seeking justice but rather about intimidating individuals into silence through financial and emotional strain. Argues that it is a necessary step to protect democratic values by broadening protection beyond economic crimes to cover all public interest discourse.

Mr. Freer supports the Bill introduced by Wayne David, arguing that SLAPPs are an abuse of power designed to inhibit public interest investigations and reporting. He mentions an increase in SLAPP cases year-on-year from 11 in 2020 to 29 in 2022. The Bill seeks to address gaps left by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act, including a more comprehensive definition of SLAPPs and protection against excessive legal costs.

Wayne David thanked all Members for their contributions and acknowledged the work of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition. He noted that cost is a fundamental issue, citing an example where a single letter in London cost £9,000. He emphasised the importance of freedom of speech and justice for all, expressing hope that the Bill will progress through the House.