Pressure grows on UK to stop ‘abusive litigation’ by oligarchs against critics

The UK is making it harder for Russian oligarchs to pursue their opponents by tightening its sanctions regime, nevertheless freedom of speech advocates say the measures don’t go far sufficient.

The federal government’s sanctions enforcement company has made modifications, which got here into impact on April 29, that block the usage of frozen funds for the cost of authorized charges associated to libel lawsuits in Britain.

The brand new guidelines make it tougher for sanctioned people and corporations to sue journalists for defamation, and are a part of its wider crackdown on so-called strategic lawsuits in opposition to public participation (Slapps).

Slapps confer with authorized actions utilized by highly effective individuals to pursue “abusive litigation” designed to “harass or intimidate” opponents into silence, in accordance with the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the UK has positioned greater than 1,300 people and entities linked to president Vladimir Putin’s regime beneath sanctions, which impose critical and in depth restrictions on these listed.

Nonetheless, the Workplace of Monetary Sanctions Implementation (Ofsi), which is a part of the Treasury, has continued to situation licences permitting frozen belongings for use to pay for sanctioned people to cowl their authorized charges in accordance with the precise to authorized illustration.

Ofsi has now amended the “Russian and Belarusian authorized companies basic licence”, as it’s identified, so it now not authorises authorized charges for defamation circumstances.

The Ukraine invasion has thrown into sharp focus the usage of the authorized system by rich people and corporations looking for to intimidate journalists, lecturers, authors and campaigners.

The specter of limitless litigation and large authorized prices, typically working into hundreds of thousands of kilos, is used in opposition to writers who face monetary wreck in the event that they determine to defend a libel case.

Earlier this 12 months, it was revealed that the Treasury granted a licence for a UK regulation agency to simply accept cost from Yevgeny Prigozhin, a detailed ally of Putin. The dispensation allowed Prigozhin, founding father of the Wagner mercenary group, to bypass UK sanctions.

Prigozhin had sought to personally sue Eliot Higgins, the founding father of investigative web site Bellingcat, for libel.

However Russia’s billionaires have lengthy sought to make use of Britain’s strict libel, privateness and information safety legal guidelines to stop mild being shed on their actions.

Catherine Belton, a former Monetary Occasions journalist, and her writer confronted a flurry of libel lawsuits — together with one from former Chelsea Soccer Membership proprietor Roman Abramovich — after the 2021 publication of her ebook Putin’s Folks, which examined the Russian president’s rise to energy. The actions had been all finally settled or withdrawn forward of trial.

Catherine Belton confronted a flurry of libel lawsuits after the publication of her ebook ‘Putin’s Folks’ in 2021 © IBL/Shutterstock

Ofsi has mentioned that “most often” it might think about the usage of frozen belongings by sanctioned people to finance libel circumstances “not an applicable use of funds, and in lots of circumstances might be in opposition to the general public curiosity”.

In a press release the federal government mentioned: “We refuse to let sanctioned oligarchs manipulate the UK’s authorized system to bully and intimidate journalists and we have now excluded defamation from the final licence consequently.”

It added that licence purposes can be thought of “case by case” however “our default place might be to disclaim these purposes”.

The UK vowed final July to deliver ahead new laws to crack down on the apply together with an early dismissal course of to throw out meritless circumstances.

The Ministry of Justice mentioned it “will legislate on the earliest alternative” to usher in proposed reforms.

However free speech campaigners are involved that there’s restricted parliamentary time earlier than the following basic election, and that with out legislative reform the misuse of the authorized system by the worldwide wealthy and highly effective will proceed.

Susan Coughtrie, director of the Overseas Coverage Centre, the worldwide affairs think-tank, mentioned: “Clearly we welcome the federal government’s repeated dedication to laws, nevertheless it begins to ring hole when virtually a 12 months later there isn’t any proposed invoice nor timeline for reform.”

Final 12 months a MoJ session discovered that Slapps, or the specter of them, was having such a “chilling impact” that some people or firms are considered “no-go” zones due to the danger of retaliation, she added.

The Home of Lords’ communications and digital committee not too long ago wrote to the federal government urging motion. Girl Tina Stowell, chair of the committee, mentioned it was “important” that ministers introduce “particular laws to deal with Slapps within the spherical”.

Authorized regulators have additionally stepped up their scrutiny. The Solicitors Regulation Authority presently has about 50 ongoing investigations into alleged Slapps and final 12 months issued a warning discover to regulation corporations.

McCue Jury & Companions, the agency that represented Higgins, has alleged the Prigozhin lawsuit was a Slapp and complained to the SRA about Discreet Regulation, the agency that acted for Prigozhin till March 2022. The SRA confirmed it had obtained a criticism and is investigating.

Discreet Regulation mentioned: “It’s public data that Discreet Regulation LLP acted for Mr Prigozhin and our place is that always we complied absolutely with our authorized {and professional} obligations. We don’t think about it applicable to remark additional whereas there are ongoing SRA enquiries.” 

The regulator printed a thematic overview of 25 regulation corporations on Slapps in February concluding that there was “good apply”. Nonetheless, it added, there have been “areas the place corporations wanted to do higher”.

Back To Top