Greg Stafford MP
Member for Farnham and BordonThis article argues that SLAPP lawsuits are being used to intimidate critics and that Greg Stafford MP’s Private Members’ Bill would widen protections, allow early dismissal of abusive cases and protect defendants from excessive costs to safeguard free speech.
The chilling effect of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or SLAPPs, is growing in the United Kingdom. For some, as an obscure legal concept, SLAPPs has quickly become a threat to basic democratic norms: the ability of journalists, campaigners, whistleblowers, researchers, and ordinary people to speak out on matters of public interest without fear of financial ruin and intimidation. Yet the current legal protections against SLAPPs remain too narrow and ineffective, leaving vulnerable voices exposed.
That is why I introduced my Private Members’ Bill, titled Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill, which I believe represents a step toward broadening protections and restoring confidence in free speech and public participation.
What is a SLAPP?
SLAPPs are legal claims that have little to do with legitimate grievances and much to do with silencing critics. They are used by powerful individuals, corporations, and other well-resourced actors to burden a target with exorbitant legal costs and psychological strain until they back down or entirely self-censor. SLAPPs can be dangerous before a case reaches a courtroom: endless legal letters, threats of litigation, and the looming threat of unlimited costs are often enough to stifle reporting, deter advocacy and chill discussion on matters of public interest.
From allegations of corruption to environmental concerns and public health debates, SLAPPs undermine the public’s right to know and the press’ ability to hold power to account. The consequences demonstrate that SLAPPs are not just a theoretical problem, but a tangible threat to democracy.
The Conservatives were the first government to introduce statutory measures to counter SLAPPs through the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, countering SLAPP cases at an early stage. Despite over 70 per cent of cases being closely related to economic crime, current legislation surrounding SLAPPs fails to account for the other 30 per cent, leaving a broader range of strategic litigation aimed at silencing public interest speech untouched. Journalists, campaigners, and ordinary people remain vulnerable to intimidation that the law was meant to prevent.
Outlier
Globally, the UK is still widely viewed as a leader in its legal courts and legislative standards; however, when anti-SLAPP legislation operates to a higher standard in other countries than our own, we must question the current Bill’s scope and effectiveness.
In the United States, several states have enacted their own anti-SLAPP legislation, while those that have not remain largely protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech. Similarly, in Canada, protections exist at the provincial level, notably in Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia. In Europe, the European Union adopted an Anti-SLAPP Directive in 2024, requiring all Member States to implement minimum protective safeguards.
Elsewhere, more limited or targeted protections exist in jurisdictions such as Australia and other parts of South East Asia, including the Philippines, Indonesia, and Thailand.
Closing the Gap
I introduced my Private Members’ Bill to address the gap. Its aim is simple: to prevent the misuse of litigation as a tool to suppress freedom of speech and public participation. While a Private Members’ Bill does not guarantee passage into law, it is essential to keep pushing this onto the Government’s agenda and to reinvigorate debate about how the UK protects free expression to push the Government toward meaningful reform.
My Bill builds on the 2023 Act by expanding the scope of SLAPP protections to all litigation brought with the aim of suppressing public participation, not just those tied to economic crime. It provides courts with a clearer statutory framework to identify and swiftly dismiss SLAPP claims before they drain defendants’ time, money, and mental wellbeing. It is designed to prevent powerful interests from using the legal system as a cudgel to intimidate those who speak out in the public interest.
Proposals in my PMB include a statutory definition of what constitutes a SLAPP, clarifying when a claim is intended to intimidate or silence public participation. Previously, judgments have relied entirely on interpretation without clear legal standards; therefore, they have been applied inconsistently. This Bill would additionally establish an early dismissal mechanism, allowing courts to strike out claims at an early stage if the claimant cannot show they have a realistic prospect of success. This prevents defendants from being dragged through long and costly legal battles.
Another important provision is protection from legal costs for defendants. Individuals such as journalists or small-scale campaigners would not be forced to pay the claimant’s legal costs unless a judge decides otherwise. I know firsthand that the threat of costs can deter people from defending themselves, even when they know they are in the right. Reducing this financial pressure empowers people to speak out without fear of being bankrupted by litigation.
A central part of the draft provision has been to balance how to prevent strategic abuse of the legal system, without restricting legitimate claims. SLAPPs are not always easy to identify. Malicious intent can be subtle, and courts are rightly cautious about intervening in disputes that involve genuine grievances. If thresholds for intervention are too high or too subjective, SLAPPs will continue to chill speech long before a judge makes a formal ruling.
Despite these challenges, I am encouraged by the renewed focus on anti-SLAPP reform. The UK Government has recognised that SLAPPs are evolving and can involve not just economic crime but environmental activism, academic research, and other forms of public interest speech. The Government’s wider anti-corruption strategy has acknowledged the problem and committed to action, though comprehensive reforms may not be in place for years. Every month that powerful interests can use litigation as a cudgel rather than a tool for justice is another month that journalists, campaigners, and ordinary citizens suffer in silence.
Without Fear or Favour
In a democracy, the law should protect the weak against intimidation by the powerful, not provide loopholes for the wealthy to misuse the courts. I believe my Bill is a step toward ensuring that public interest speech is shielded from legal harassment rather than cowed by it. To make it truly effective, however, lawmakers must listen to those who have faced SLAPPs firsthand and ensure protections are broad, clear, and practical. Our legal framework must match our democratic ideals, or we risk leaving the very voices that hold power to account without any protection at all.
Photo Credit: Matt Brown
This article features in the new edition of ChamberUK. Our parliamentary journal.
You can buy your copy here.