Key Facts

• The purpose of the Act is to protect public debate, accountability, and free speech.
• Clause 1 requires rules of court to dismiss SLAPP cases at an early stage if the claimant fails to show their case will succeed.
• Rules must be developed for cost protection for defendants in SLAPP cases.
• The SLAPP Bill seeks to protect free speech while maintaining a balance with the right to sue for defamation.
• New clause 1 aims to guide judges on how broadly they should interpret the Bill's provisions.
• The Bill has gained cross-party consensus and builds on previous legislative efforts.
• The Bill aims to legislate for SLAPP cases not covered by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023.
• Clause 1 sets the stage for action against abuses of the administration of justice, addressing inequality under the law.
• Concerns are raised about clause 1(1)(b) shifting the onus of proof to the claimant in applications to strike out a claim.
• The Bill aims to protect free speech while balancing rights of claimants and defendants.
• New clause 1 proposes to clarify the purpose of the Act in protecting public participation and accountability.
• Mike Freer agrees to work towards bridging the gap with David Davis and others before Report stage.
• The Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill aims to stop pernicious behaviour in litigation.
• The Government believes clause 1 creates an appropriate framework for courts to deal with SLAPPs, allowing swift dismissal of such claims and fair assessment.
• There is a concern about the potential unintended consequences or problems resulting from new clause 1.
• The new clause risks introducing uncertain concepts into domestic law.
• Judges are well versed in interpreting provisions and ensuring justice is done.
• Explanatory notes provide substantial meaning to the bill and should be considered important.
• Amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 are discussed.
• The proposed amendments aim to reorder clause 2 to prioritize public interest over free speech.
• Amendment 1 seeks to ensure public interest is the primary consideration in identifying SLAPP claims.
• Amendments 2 and 5 introduce a reasonableness test for assessing claimant's behavior.
• The government supports efforts to curtail abusive litigation proceedings.
• Amendments 2, 5, 6, 7, and 10 aim to clarify criteria for identifying SLAPP cases.
• Clause 3 removes sections 194 and 195 of the ECCTA related to economic crime SLAPPs.
• The Bill applies only to England and Wales; Scotland and Northern Ireland must legislate separately.
• Dan McCrum from Financial Times faced online abuse, hacking, electronic eavesdropping, physical surveillance, and legal threats.
• A journalist was targeted with misogynistic harassment, including a smear campaign, online harassment, and surveillance.
• Clare Rewcastle Brown highlighted the importance of addressing pre-action litigation and smear campaigns in her work uncovering corruption.
• The International Press Institute warns about the damaging effects of online harassment on journalists' reputations.
• Adam Afriyie speaks in support of amendments aimed at clarifying the Bill's intent.
• Amendments 11 and 12 aim to address issues related to intimidation, harassment, and financial challenges faced by journalists and media outlets.
• Andrew Slaughter congratulates the MP for Caerphilly on his amendments and highlights their importance in strengthening the Bill.
• Amendments 1, 3, 4, 8 and 9 reorder themes so that public interest is referenced before freedom of speech.
• Amendments 2 and 5 ensure a more objective approach to identifying intent in SLAPP cases.
• Amendment 10 clarifies that the list of public interests is not exhaustive.
• The Government are content fully to support all 10 amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Caerphilly.
• Clause 2(4) and (5) of the Bill provide examples of behaviour that can be considered as evidence of misconduct, but they are not exhaustive lists.
• The UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition is broadly supportive of the Bill.
• Amendments 1, 3, 4, 8, and 9 were tabled to give greater prominence to the public interest element.
• Amendment 12 aims to expand categories of conduct showing wrongful behaviour by the claimant.
• The Anti-SLAPP Coalition has been significantly involved in the process.