Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation

Rachel Blake Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) on securing this important debate. I really welcome being here with friends who are so committed to this issue, and who have been for such a long time. This debate is about much more than press freedom, although it is very much about that; it is about whether ordinary people can speak out in the public interest without fear of being silenced by those with deeper pockets, greater resources and access to expensive legal representation.

Strategic lawsuits against public participation—SLAPPs, as they are so unattractively described—are designed not necessarily to win in court, but to intimidate, exhaust and suppress scrutiny. They are increasingly deployed against journalists and campaigners, whistleblowers, survivors of abuse, community activists and ordinary citizens. Anyone who raises legitimate concerns about matters of public interest can find themselves on the receiving end of aggressive legal threats, as we have heard. The consequence of that is a chilling effect that extends far beyond the individual target. When one person is punished for speaking out, countless others are forced to conclude that it might be safer for them to remain silent. That should concern every Member of this House.

One case that demonstrates that danger particularly clearly is that of my constituent, the investigative journalist Clare Rewcastle Brown, founder of Sarawak Report. Ms Rewcastle Brown played a key role in exposing the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal in Malaysia—one of the largest corruption scandals in recent history. Her reporting helped bring international attention to allegations involving billions of dollars that had been diverted from a Malaysian state investment fund. Those allegations subsequently became the subject of investigations and prosecutions across multiple jurisdictions. But instead of scrutiny being met simply with accountability, it was met with legal pressure. Between 2017 and 2019, Ms Rewcastle Brown was pursued through the London courts in a libel action brought by Abdul Hadi Awang, the president of the Malaysian political party PAS. The claim was eventually withdrawn and settled in her favour before trial.

The significance of that case lies not merely in its outcome, but in what it demonstrates about the power imbalance at the heart of SLAPPs. As Ms Rewcastle Brown has described, she understood that the objective was not simply to challenge particular words on a page; rather, it was to place immense pressure on a journalist through the prospect of years of costly litigation, with the hope that, eventually, that pressure would force a retraction, damage credibility and discourage further reporting. Even when defendants ultimately prevail, they cannot recover the years lost to litigation, the stress inflicted upon them, or the time diverted away from public interest work. That is why campaigners often say that in a SLAPP, the process becomes the punishment.

Let us consider what is at stake. Without investigative journalists such as Clare Rewcastle Brown, one of the world’s most significant corruption scandals might never have received the scrutiny that it deserved, important information might never have reached the public domain and powerful individuals might never have been held accountable; yet our legal system left the burden on the journalist to endure years of legal challenge before reaching that outcome. The reality is that many people do not have the resilience, resources or support to do what Clare did. Many local journalists do not, many campaigners do not, many victims of wrongdoing do not, and many ordinary citizens certainly do not.

Increasingly, these tactics are evolving. They are no longer confined to traditional defamation claims; we now see claims framed through privacy law, data protection law, harassment claims and injunctions. The legal mechanisms change but the purpose remains the same: to drive up cost, create fear and suppress participation in public life. That is why the existing protections are insufficient. The anti-SLAPP provisions in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act, as we have heard, were an important first step. However, they are limited to economic crime reporting and leave many people vulnerable. A journalist investigating corruption may receive some protection; a survivor speaking about abuse may not, a local campaigner raising concerns about environmental damage may not, and a resident exposing wrongdoing in their community may not. That cannot be the right approach.

I am also concerned about questions surrounding enforcement and regulation. The Solicitors Regulation Authority has made it clear that solicitors must not pursue abusive litigation tactics, must not advance unmeritorious claims and must not use their professional position to intimidate those engaged in lawful public interest activity. Those principles are absolutely right, but principles alone are not enough if those subjected to abusive legal threats do not have confidence that the system is working. That is why legislation and regulation must go hand in hand in this scenario. We need a robust statutory framework that allows judges to dismiss abusive claims at the earliest possible stage, we need strong cost protections for defendants, and we need effective professional regulation that ensures lawyers who facilitate abusive tactics are held to account.

This should not be a partisan issue. Members across this House depend on a free press. We depend on campaigners, researchers, whistleblowers and engaged citizens bringing serious issues to public attention. Democracy itself depends on scrutiny. I therefore urge the Government to work constructively with all colleagues from all parties to bring forward comprehensive anti-SLAPP legislation that protects public interest speech, upholds press freedom and ensures that our courts cannot be used as instruments of intimidation by those seeking to escape scrutiny. We should ask ourselves what is holding us back from tackling this, because ultimately, this debate is about a simple principle. In a democratic society, the law should protect those who speak truthfully in the public interest, not provide powerful individuals with the means to silence them.

Jury Trials

Rachel Blake Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

My answer to the hon. Gentleman is simple: there will be an impact assessment and this House will have the opportunity to scrutinise it. It is important that the impact assessment assesses the Bill that is brought forward, which must of course interact with the concordat process and the agreed number of sitting days with the judiciary.

We as a Government do not practise the learned helplessness that His Majesty’s Opposition did in the past 14 years; we look for solutions. That is why we commissioned the independent review of the criminal courts, to conduct and carry out a careful piece of work, and to provide the blueprint for the change that is so desperately needed. All I hear from the Opposition is, “The Government should simply ignore that work”, but that is the evidence base, and that is the blueprint we are going to follow.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

On the point about delay and the solutions we must bring forward, just yesterday I was with communities, near here in Victoria, who are facing the scourge of street drug dealing, and the aggressive harassment of residents by drug dealers, who also prey on vulnerable people who find themselves rough sleeping. The police, people in the sector and those working on the front line tell me that they are really struggling with the state of our courts and justice systems. Does the Minister agree that victims of crime are affected by that, as well as communities who are facing and struggling with the scourge of crime and antisocial behaviour on our streets? She will have listened to the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State, so was she as profoundly disappointed as I was by his attempt at building a consensus on this topic, and by the complete paucity of suggestions that he has brought forward, when many suggestions are already being considered?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is right: at the heart of the considerations that we must make as we bring our justice system, reformed and rebuilt, into the 21st century, are victims. This is all about delivering swift justice for victims, because what our constitution guarantees is not a constitutional right to a jury trial, but a constitutional right to a fair trial. The essential ingredient of fairness is timeliness, not waiting years while evidence deteriorates, memories fade, and victims and witnesses alike pull out; it is about getting swift justice. When I talk about reform of the system, of course I listen to important stakeholders who lead our professions, and of course their opinion counts, but my interest is in having a criminal justice system that serves the public, not one that serves lawyers.

Criminal Law

Rachel Blake Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is right that, ultimately, one of the long-term solutions to the capacity crisis must be to reduce reoffending; I am just coming on to that point in my speech. I will happily arrange for her to meet the Prisons Minister and I will take a close interest in what is happening in Milton Keynes.

Let us be under no illusion. The measure I have set out today is not a silver bullet. It does not end the prisons crisis. It is not the long-term solution. Instead, it buys us the time we need to take further measures that can address the prisons crisis not just now, but in the future. Later this year, we will publish a 10-year capacity strategy, which will outline the steps that the Government will take to acquire land for new prison sites and will ensure that building prisons—infrastructure that we deem to be of national importance—is a decision placed in a Minister’s hands.

We must also drive down reoffending. Currently, all too often our prisons create better criminals, not better citizens. Nearly 80% of offenders are reoffenders. A stronger Probation Service will be crucial to driving down reoffending, and we will start by recruiting at least 1,000 new trainee probation officers by the end of March 2025, bringing forward an existing commitment to address the immediate challenges we face today. We will also work with prisons to ensure that offenders can get the skills they need to contribute to society on release, as well as bringing together prison governors, local employers and the voluntary sector to help them into work, because we know that having a job makes offenders less likely to reoffend.

The last occupants of 10 Downing Street left our prisons in crisis.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that Cities of London and Westminster has some of the highest levels of rough sleeping in the country, with 2,050 rough sleepers every night in Westminster and 482 in the City of London. St Mungo’s has highlighted that 68% of people released from prison into rough sleeping will reoffend within the year. It is simply essential that a planning process and needs assessment take place before people are released. Local authorities with the responsibility of preventing homelessness simply do not have the resources or working processes to ensure that that planning takes place. Will those processes and resources be in place before the legislation is implemented in September?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The point about homelessness, and what it means for recall into prison, is incredibly important. The implementation period allows probation time to prepare plans for every offender who will be released. That is different from the previous Government’s ECSL scheme, which gave no time at all. Some of these issues will be mitigated by that implementation period. Offenders leaving prison can access transitional accommodation for up to 84 nights if they are at risk of being homeless. Those provisions will continue as this scheme is rolled out.