Foreign policy thinktank: Foreign journalists threatened by the powerful using English law

Those reporting from outside the UK on financial crime and corruption face almost as many threats of court action in Britain as they do from all other European countries and the United States combined, according to the Foreign Policy Centre (FPC), which is arguing for better protections for journalists.

“If the UK wants to take a strong stance on anti-corruption as well as safety of journalists globally … there is a clear need to review and reassess what measures can be taken to prevent abuse by corrupt figures at home as well as abroad,” the FPC report states.

In recent years, a growing number of foreign freelance journalists, and news outlets with no staff and no offices in the UK, have reported receiving letters from London law firms acting on behalf of the people they are investigating.

They include publishers from Bosnia, Cyprus, Malta, South Africa and Angola. Those wanting to sue foreign journalists need not be British either – if they can demonstrate a connection to the UK, such as a home or a business, London judges can agree to hear their claims. Court action in the UK can be prohibitively expensive, with costs and damages running into millions of pounds.

Published on Monday, the “Unsafe for Scrutiny” report includes a survey of over 60 journalists in 41 countries, many of whom have worked on cross-border money laundering investigations such as the Panama Papers.

Some 31% said they had been threatened with court action in London, mainly for defamation or privacy claims. The UK was the most common jurisdiction for legal threats after a journalist’s home country.

In terms of subject matter, at least 61% said their investigations had uncovered links to the UK and its network of overseas territories and crown dependencies, many of which operate as tax havens.

The authors, Susan Coughtrie and Poppy Ogier, singled out the UK for criticism, saying its role as a “facilitator” of crime and corruption through misuse of its financial system, as well as being the source of a disproportionate number of legal threats, “sets it apart from other countries”.

“While legal representation, and the right to defend yourself against spurious claims is an important feature of democratic societies, the misuse of legal systems in an attempt to shut down public interest reporting must also be seen as undemocratic,” they stated. They say there is a considerable “imbalance of power” between those who have the funds to employ UK law firms and the journalists and media outlets that they target.

Although most cases never reach court, respondents said the threat of legal action was enough to prevent information related to corruption from coming to light, with many saying they felt pressured into self-censoring. Unless journalists chose to make threats public, the pressure on their reporting remained hidden too.

Campaigners are calling for states across Europe to follow the US and Canada by adopting measures designed to discourage vexatious lawsuits, sometimes referred to as strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP).

Proposals include allowing early dismissal of abusive cases; awareness raising exercises among judges; making vexatious claimants pay costs; and giving practical support to those who are sued.

The EU has vowed to improve protections for journalists as part of a forthcoming European Democracy Action Plan, which is currently open to consultation.

Sarah Clarke, head of Europe and Central Asia at the freedom of expression campaign group Article 19, said the UK needed to follow suit. Without reform of the London libel industry, action at a European level would not stop cross border legal cases posing a “major threat” to journalists.

“This report makes the case even clearer of the urgent need for reform. In allowing this abuse to continue, the UK government is not living up to its own stated commitments to protect media freedom,” she said.
Source: Guardian