Lawyers for the super-rich have ‘strangled Labour’s Slapp bill’ by means of a ‘discreet lobbying campaign’. So declared a New Statesman article last week penned by Democracy for Sale, a body that purports to expose ‘dark money and hidden influence’.
A tidy exclusive. But is it true?
The lobbyists in question belong to the Society of Media Lawyers (SML), an organisation set up in 2023 to add ‘fairness and balance’ to the SLAPPs debate. A host of familiar names rank among its members, hailing from firms such as Carter-Ruck, Harbottle & Lewis and Mishcon de Reya.
In January, I suggested that SLAPPs is another battle with professional vested interests for which a beleaguered Labour administration has no stomach. So was I right? Not necessarily. Justice secretary David Lammy this week reiterated the government’s commitment to anti-SLAPPs legislation. Our own columnist Jonathan Goldsmith, meanwhile, reckons a new prime minister might push the issue up Labour’s agenda.
I asked SML about taking the credit for torpedoing SLAPPs legislation and its response was characteristically pugnacious.
‘We are disappointed, but unsurprised by the recent spate of articles by campaigners that have sought to discredit the society,’ said a spokesperson. ‘They present a cynical, cliched and inaccurate view of media lawyers and a misleading picture of the so-called “SLAPP crisis”. Like much campaigning in this area, the language and anecdotes are emotive, but the arguments are not supported by empirical evidence.’
SML does not believe it has ‘any significant influence’ within government or parliament, pointing out that it was declined a seat on the government’s SLAPP taskforce. The society wants the question of legislative reform referred to the Law Commission.
Also absent from the King’s speech, of course, was legislation to reverse PACCAR. ‘The more time that passes since the July 2023 ruling, the more the government will be tempted to think that the market has adapted and legislation isn’t really needed,’ one lit funding insider told me.
‘But the true cost is hard to quantify, because it’s about the cases that are not being brought because of PACCAR, and the extent to which the UK is losing out to other jurisdictions that are more attractive to funders.’
No comments yet