Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families

Joe Powell Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing this debate. More than eight years after the Grenfell Tower fire, the fight for justice for the 72 who lost their lives, the bereaved and the survivors continues. Tomorrow is the first anniversary of the publication of the Grenfell Tower inquiry report, which shone a light on the systematic failure that led to the fire. I welcome the Government’s acceptance of the recommendations from the inquiry, but there has still been no criminal accountability and the pace of change has been far too slow—just witness the families across the country still sleeping in unsafe flats that have not been remediated.

I pay tribute again to the Hillsborough families, who have fought to ensure that other communities do not have to suffer as they did. But we know, from Windrush to the Post Office, LGBT veterans, infected blood and many other scandals, that we need to reform how we approach injustices involving the very state that is supposed to protect people. That starts with the Hillsborough law: an essential levelling of the playing field between victims and the state, including, as others have said, parity of legal aid and a duty of candour. But we should not stop at the Hillsborough law. It is also vital that we ensure that lessons of past tragedies are never ignored. To go through lengthy and expensive public inquiries and then fail to change compounds the original injustice further.

The same goes for coroners’ findings, including prevention of future deaths reports, which are vital early warnings to the state to prevent larger tragedies. Grenfell shows us the cost: after the Lakanal House fire in 2009, the coroner made clear recommendations to review building regulations, including guidance on external fire spread applicable to new and older housing stock. If those recommendations had been implemented, it is very possible that the fire eight years later would have been avoided.

I urge the Government to consider independent oversight of whether lessons from inquiries have been learned, including through a national oversight mechanism. This is not about taking power away from Ministers or Parliament. If the Government wish to reject recommendations, they can do so and explain why, but that should be done openly and transparently. I believe that an oversight mechanism would help the Government to improve, deliver on a public sector reform agenda, and deliver on justice and change for victims, including those at Grenfell.

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation

Joe Powell Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for securing this important debate. I declare an interest, as I spent more than a decade working on open government transparency and accountability around the world, supporting journalists and civil society to hold Governments to account, often in countries where people could be locked up for speaking truth to power. Indeed, I worked as an investigative journalist reporting on corruption in Uganda many years ago, standing up to people who wanted to silence our stories.

I begin by recognising and paying tribute to the brave reporters, investigative journalists and victims of SLAPPs in the UK and around the world. People look to us to lead by example on democracy and free speech—I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for all his work on media freedom—but our leadership is undermined by the use of these lawsuits to harass, intimidate and silence critics of the corrupt and powerful in this country.

As we have already heard, the UK legal system has become fertile ground for SLAPPs, particularly for those who wish to conceal money laundering and economic crime. A survey by the Foreign Policy Centre, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset referred, found that international reporters on financial crime and corruption face as many threats of court action in England as they do from all other European countries and the US combined.

Other Members have mentioned the case of Catherine Belton, the investigative journalist who received multiple legal threats following the publication of her book, “Putin’s People”. Four oligarchs, including Roman Abramovich, who owns frozen assets in my constituency, and a Russian state oil company launched lawsuits against her and her publisher HarperCollins. Abramovich sued over a number of claims, including that he bought Chelsea football club on Putin’s orders. That libel was settled, but had that trial gone ahead, the legal bill would likely have exceeded £10 million.

Similarly, the journalist Tom Burgis faced legal action for his book “Kleptopia” from the mining company the Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation. ENRC sued Burgis personally and also targeted his publisher, again HarperCollins. It even went so far as suing the Financial Times over an article related to Burgis’s book. The defence for Burgis and his publisher cost nearly £340,000. As the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) mentioned, many organisations without that financial firepower would never be able to fight those lawsuits as the Financial Times did. That claim was dismissed by the judge, but had the case gone to trial and been lost, the estimated costs including ENRC’s legal fees and damages would have risen to £1.5 million. For these journalists, the mere threat of losing their home or public disgrace shows how SLAPPs are not just about winning cases in court; they are about silencing dissent and a chilling effect on free speech.

It is welcome that there is support from across the House on this topic. Provisions introduced through the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 were a welcome step. However, those measures apply only to cases involving economic crime and have not yet been fully implemented in the civil procedure rules. We must move swiftly to enact those provisions so that, in cases around corruption and kleptocracy, people cannot exploit the UK legal system to silence those who seek to expose their crimes.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) and the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) mentioned, we must go further. I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s pledge just last month in an article in The Guardian that the Government will

“tackle the use of Slapps to protect investigative journalism”.

I turn to perhaps the most harrowing recent example of the danger posed by SLAPPs: that of Mohammed al-Fayed, the former owner of Harrods, which is in my constituency of Kensington and Bayswater. In September, the BBC aired allegations that al-Fayed raped five women and sexually assaulted over a dozen others while they worked for him. Since then, over 200 women have come forward with allegations, but, for decades, efforts to hold al-Fayed accountable were thwarted by legal threats and intimidation. As far back as 1995, Vanity Fair published an article about al-Fayed that detailed how he had sued The Observer over a story about the sources of his wealth. Other journalists were also threatened or sued. At the time, the journalist Maureen Orth wrote:

“All critical reporting outside The Observer virtually stopped”.

Allegations in the press of sexual abuse were suppressed.

In 2008, The Mail on Sunday prepared a report stating that al-Fayed was under investigation for sexually assaulting a 15-year-old. Legal threats forced it to remove his name and refer instead to a “senior Harrods executive”. That is how SLAPPs work—they do not just protect reputations; they shield individuals from accountability and allow abuse to continue unchecked. Al-Fayed died before he could face justice. Imagine how many women’s lives would not have been ruined if anti-SLAPP legislation had been in place and journalists had been able to report freely on the case. My thoughts are with all the victims of Mohammed al-Fayed; I am sure the whole House will join me in that. Their bravery in coming forward now deserves our utmost respect. It is not least for them that we must ensure that men like al-Fayed can no longer use these lawsuits to conceal their horrific crimes.

I ask the Minister: how can we ensure that this Parliament will act decisively to finish the job, following the Prime Minister’s commitment? As I mentioned, the current economic crime legislation is a step forward, but the existing SLAPPs provisions must be implemented swiftly and the scope of provisions must go further to cover other forms of wrongdoing, including sexual misconduct, war crimes and harassment, as we have heard from Members across the House.

First, further legislation in this Parliament will be needed to ensure that, for example, we have a filter mechanism that empowers courts to dispose swiftly of SLAPPs without the need for a subjective inquiry into the state of mind of the SLAPP filer. Where there may be ongoing abuse, there must be a very high threshold.

Secondly, there must be penalties that are sufficient to deter the use of SLAPPs and provide full compensation to those targeted. Those penalties should take into account both the harm caused to the defendant and the conduct and resources available to the claimant. The level playing field argument needs to be made clearly. Finally, there must be protective measures for SLAPP victims, including cost protections, safeguards and measures to reduce the ability of SLAPP claimants to weaponise the litigation process, including against investigative journalists.

SLAPPs are not just a legal tactic; they are weapons against transparency, accountability and justice. We have the power and the responsibility to ensure that the UK legal system cannot be hijacked by the corrupt and powerful. We must ensure that those trying to uncover crimes and corruption of the wealthy and powerful—journalists, academics and whistleblowers—are protected and not persecuted. Let us send a clear message today as a united House that the UK will no longer be a safe haven for those seeking to silence their critics.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joe Powell Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

As I have stated, this Government were elected with a landmark mission to halve violence against women and girls within a decade. To do so, we must improve the justice system’s response to these crimes, including domestic abuse. We must relentlessly target the most prolific and harmful perpetrators, better support victims and survivors, and ensure timely and effective justice. We will put domestic abuse experts in 999 control rooms and strengthen the use of protection orders, and we will strengthen the tools available to manage domestic abuse offenders.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

T3. Over the weekend, Lord MacDonald, the former director of public prosecutions, warned that court backlogs and the complexity of any trials that may arise from a CPS decision in 2026 about the victims of the Grenfell fire may further delay justice. Could the Minister give us and the victims reassurance that the criminal justice system will not further delay justice for those victims?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Heidi Alexander)]

As I said to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), we will do everything we can to ensure swift justice for the victims of Grenfell. We plan for the Crown court to sit for at least 105,000 days this financial year, and we will do more to increase the speed with which cases are heard in the Crown court.