Capital Economy, Business and Finance
A senior peer has been criticised for failing to declare that he is a member of a group of lawyers seeking to stymie attempts at reforming SLAPPs.
For many months MPs and peers have been debating legislation designed to curb the use of what are known as strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) – bogus legal actions typically used by oligarchs or others in positions of power to silence journalists.
Lord Edward Garnier, a former solicitor general and practising barrister for legal chambers 4 Pump Court, has repeatedly spoken out against the need for legislation, both in Parliament and in newspaper columns.
He has also written privately to junior ministers at the Ministry of Justice, as well as seeking meetings with them.
Although Garnier has declared that he has “been practising at the defamation bar since the mid-1970s”, he has made no reference to the Society of Media Lawyers, which was set up over a year ago to oppose SLAPPs reform, either during debates or on his register of interests.
On one occasion, in a private, unpublished, letter to former minister Lord Bellamy, Garnier disclosed that he was a member of the group. Other communication seen by Tortoise makes no reference to the group.
Journalists who have been targeted with SLAPPS include Catherine Belton, author of Putin’s People, and Tom Burgis, author of Kleptopia and an investigations correspondent for the Guardian.
Garnier told Tortoise he had been advised that did not have to register his membership of the Society of Media Lawyers, noting that the code of conduct exempts interests such as “unpaid ordinary membership of voluntary organisations or pressure groups”.
He added: “It is correct that in speeches in the House of Lords on SLAPPs… I have always drawn attention to my professional connection to the subject as a media law specialist at the Bar at the beginning of my remarks. It is from my work as a barrister that I derive my professional income and which is of interest to the House and those reading our debates.”
But critics, both within Parliament and outside, told Tortoise they believed he should have gone further and made clear his link to the pressure group, which was set up in order to challenge SLAPPs reform.
In May, Tory MP David Davis described the Society of Media Lawyers as “the very people who have created the problem that we are now trying to resolve”.
According to the SML’s own website, its membership is made up of lawyers who predominantly represent libel claimants, including Garnier.
They also include Carter-Ruck, which is the subject of a complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) by former Conservative MP Charlotte Leslie, following a long legal dispute between her and the millionaire Tory donor Mohamed Amersi.
Also represented is Osborne Clarke, a law firm facing possible sanctions after being referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal over an alleged SLAPP when acting on behalf of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nadhim Zahawi. This is the first time the alleged use of lawfare has been referred to the SDT.
Dan Neidle, the tax expert, who had been investigating Zahawi, told Tortoise: “I see no sign of balance in [the Society of Media Lawyers’] position at all. They are largely claimant libel lawyers whose interest is in preserving the status quo for libel law… this is not neutral interest – they have a direct economic interest in this.”
Max Wilkinson, Lib Dem spokesperson on Culture, Media and Sport, said: “If parliamentarians have a vested interest in this debate, they need to be honest with the public and declare it. Failing to do so is simply not good enough.”
Steve Goodrich, head of research and investigations at Transparency International, agreed. “Lords must declare interests relevant to their contributions in Parliament, even if they’ don’t involve a direct financial benefit, yet this doesn’t always happen,” he said. “If you’re part of a campaign to retain the status quo in media law, then it seems apposite to make this clear during debates about defamation.”
One Conservative MP, who was not aware of Garnier’s connection to the Society of Media Lawyers, told Tortoise that despite broad parliamentary consensus in favour of SLAPPs reform there was now concern that progress was being held back because of “lobbying behind the scenes”.
Heidi Alexander, the justice minister leading on SLAPPs, told MPs last week the government was not planning to legislate on them in the current parliamentary session, noting that “there are strong and differing views on SLAPPs”.
However, campaigners argue that Garnier is a lone voice within parliament amplified by the Society of Media Lawyers’ successful efforts to approach MPs, officials and ministers.
During a debate in July aimed at resurrecting the cross-party consensus for reform, Garnier urged the new justice minister, Lord Ponsonby, to refer the matter to the Law Commission “so that we can generate rather more light than heat”. He also referred to a letter he had sent to Ponsonby’s predecessor Lord Bellamy, offering to forward him a copy.
In the letter, Garnier says that while he is “not against sensible, practical reform” he had “grave concerns” about a private members’ bill then under discussion.
A House of Lords report into SLAPPS, published today (Monday 25th November) singled out the Society of Media Lawyers as having argued that the use of lawfare is “overblown” but noted: “Viable legislative options and precedents exist. What is missing now is political will. Its absence reflects poorly on the new Government’s values and commitment to justice. We are not persuaded that the complexity of the issue, or the need for cross-government engagement, are a valid excuse for lengthy delays”.
This article has been amended to reflect the fact that Garnier has made us aware that he disclosed his connection to the Society of Media Lawyers in an unpublished letter to a minister.
