Reminds Members that they should not refer to cases if arrangements for a hearing have been made, as the sub judice rule applies then. Ensures members can discuss matters freely when no such arrangements exist.

SLAPPs are a tool used by wealthy individuals to silence free speech and prevent important investigations from reaching the public. The current legal system allows these powerful actors to abuse their financial might, delaying or preventing the publication of stories that could reveal misconduct and corruption. Hatton cites examples such as Professor Kristian Lasslett’s suppressed story on a construction project in Uzbekistan linked to corrupt Gupta family and Dan Neidle's investigation into former Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi's tax arrangements.

The UK has a proud record of defending and promoting media freedom, with the establishment of the Media Freedom Coalition. The ranking in the world press freedom index has improved, though challenges remain such as SLAPPs and libel tourism. Measures like the Libel Terrorism Protection Act 2008 and the Defamation Act 2013 have been introduced to combat these issues but a chilling effect persists. Further legislative action is needed to address ongoing concerns about SLAPPs.

Strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs, are used to silence lawful scrutiny and publication. They cause immense mental and financial distress for those targeted. The lack of effective anti-SLAPP legislation undermines democracy by allowing the powerful to manipulate the legal system to conceal wrongdoing. Rebecca Long-Bailey calls for a comprehensive anti-SLAPP Bill that balances access to justice for all, not just the wealthy, as well as transparency in public life and engagement from parliamentarians and civil society.

Discussed the issue of SLAPPs, emphasising that while individuals should have the right to seek legal protection, there is an abuse of the legal process by wealthy individuals using costly litigation to silence critics. Proposed early intervention in court proceedings to prevent excessive costs and protect vulnerable individuals and organisations from such tactics. Provided examples including Charlotte Leslie's case and Post Office's attempts to suppress reporting on Horizon scandal.

Congratulates the Member for South Dorset on securing the debate; acknowledges newly elected Members taking up the issue of SLAPPs. Criticises lack of progress despite numerous debates, highlighting measures in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 as insufficient. Mentions Sir Wayne David's Bill that failed to become law due to the general election. Expresses concern over SLAPPs' chilling effect on freedom of speech and justice system integrity, using examples like McLibel case and Charlotte Leslie’s treatment. Advocates for government legislative intent to address SLAPPs; calls for protection against misuse of courts by wealthy individuals or entities.

Mr Timothy emphasised that while he is not an absolute proponent of free speech, the current legal imbalance due to SLAPPs threatens democratic values. He highlighted cases such as Tom Burgis' libel suit and Charlotte Leslie's defamation case, illustrating how wealthy individuals abuse the court system to suppress criticism and dissent. The speaker called for immediate action by the Government to address this issue through legislation that ensures equal access to justice and free speech.

Democratic and press freedoms are fundamental to our rights. Campaigning on changing the law to provide meaningful protection against SLAPPs is crucial, especially in cases of domestic violence. I experienced vexatious litigation aimed at silencing my public participation as an MP and a survivor of domestic abuse. Abusers use litigation to silence, intimidate, discredit, and disempower survivors. There is bias in media outlets reporting on issues related to domestic abuse. Media censorship occurs due to threats of legal action against journalists investigating such cases. Preventing the misuse of litigation and ensuring free expression of survivors' truths are essential for freedom of speech.

Thanked the hon. Member for South Dorset and others for their contributions, highlighted the case of Ben Jenkins who faced legal threats from his social housing provider GreenSquareAccord after speaking out about safety concerns and inadequate responses to complaints. Emphasised that grassroots campaigners need protection against SLAPPs which undermine democratic health and public accountability.

Paid tribute to brave journalists and victims of SLAPPs, highlighting the impact on financial crime reporting. Cited Catherine Belton's case against Roman Abramovich and Tom Burgis’s case from ENRC as examples where legal threats stifled free speech and investigative journalism. Emphasised the need for swift implementation of economic crime legislation and broader anti-SLAPP measures to protect whistleblowers, journalists, and victims of sexual misconduct.

Shared a case involving Carrie Jones, who received legal threats after raising concerns about Samuel Leeds's courses that may have contributed to her brother Danny’s suicide. Highlighted the chilling effect of SLAPPs on public discourse and the need for comprehensive anti-SLAPP legislation to protect individuals from such intimidation.

Congratulates the hon. Member for South Dorset on securing the debate, expresses concern over SLAPPs in the UK, highlights the crisis of free speech among journalists, authors, writers, and broadcasters, mentions examples from other countries with anti-SLAPP mechanisms, urges the Government to introduce such mechanisms as a matter of urgency.

Congratulates Lloyd Hatton on securing the debate, shares the case of Jan Cruickshank who faced sexual assault at work, details how CITB mishandled her complaint, describes a targeted campaign to discredit her, discusses the impact of false narratives and NDAs, argues that Jan’s case fits the category of a SLAPP, calls for justice and compensation, requests a public apology from CITB and reconsideration by Police Scotland.

I thank all Members for their contributions and particularly the hon. Member for South Dorset for his concise presentation. I was personally involved in a High Court case involving the covid vaccine, which had no legal foundation but required significant time and financial resources to defend against. This illustrates the stress and uncertainty that SLAPP cases can create, even when there is no basis for them. The recent case of Malachi O'Doherty against Gerry Kelly exemplifies how SLAPPs are used to silence critics by stifling freedom of speech. Legislation is needed to empower the judiciary to intervene early in such cases.

Welcoming the debate, I emphasise that SLAPPs are an affront to our democracy as they censor, intimidate and silence critics of powerful vested interests. These lawsuits burden journalists with legal defence costs, preventing them from naming landlords who provide substandard accommodation for homeless people and asylum seekers. This case, among others, demonstrates how SLAPPs chill public debate by deterring whistleblowers and investigative journalism. We need a comprehensive anti-SLAPP law to protect free speech and hold the powerful accountable.

The UK legal system is being exploited by bad actors to stifle public discourse through SLAPPs. These lawsuits are not just frivolous but a deliberate tactic to intimidate, drain resources, and suppress voices that expose wrongdoing or hold the powerful accountable. Investigative journalists, whistleblowers, campaigners, and even grieving families have found themselves silenced by SLAPPs, which conceal misconduct and erode trust in institutions. The UK has been the most frequent single international origin of legal threats against journalists according to a 2020 survey by the Foreign Policy Centre. The previous Government introduced important legislation to combat SLAPPs but fell short due to timing issues. Labour supported a private Member’s Bill proposed by Wayne David, which fell during wash-up before the general election. Mullan urges the current Government to address pressing questions and commit to comprehensive anti-SLAPP legislation next year or support ongoing work with the Solicitors Regulation Authority and SLAPPs taskforce.

Announces his intention to introduce a Bill based on Wayne David’s private Member’s Bill in early January, seeking support from the Conservative party Opposition.

SLAPPs represent an abuse of the legal system, curtail free speech and public interest journalism, and pose a threat to democracy. These lawsuits often involve an imbalance of power where wealthy individuals or entities use their financial resources to silence critics through legal means. SLAPPs have significant psychological and financial impacts on those targeted, leading to withdrawal of investigations or public commentary due to the exhaustion caused by high legal costs. The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 introduced a statutory definition of SLAPPs and rules for early dismissal of such claims without merit. However, Labour acknowledges the complexity of addressing SLAPPs beyond economic crime and intends to monitor the implementation of existing measures before considering further legislative action. Non-legislative measures like guidance from regulatory bodies are also being considered.

The debate was wound up by Lloyd Hatton, who thanked several Members for their contributions and highlighted a broad consensus about the need to overhaul the approach to SLAPPs. He emphasised that the scandal of SLAPPs cannot be allowed to go unchallenged any longer, suggesting an opportunity for both sides of the House to work together to address this issue comprehensively.