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

The UK is making it tougher 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 towards public participation (Slapps).

Slapps consult with authorized actions utilized by highly effective individuals to pursue “abusive litigation” designed to “harass or intimidate” opponents into silence, in response to 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 below sanctions, which impose critical and intensive restrictions on these listed.

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

Ofsi has now amended the “Russian and Belarusian authorized providers normal licence”, as it’s recognized, 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 searching for to intimidate journalists, teachers, authors and campaigners.

The specter of limitless litigation and large authorized prices, typically operating into hundreds of thousands of kilos, is used towards writers who face monetary damage 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 legislation agency to simply accept cost from Yevgeny Prigozhin, an in depth 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 Individuals, which examined the Russian president’s rise to energy. The actions have 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 Individuals’ in 2021 © IBL/Shutterstock

Ofsi has stated that “most often” it will take into account the usage of frozen property by sanctioned people to finance libel circumstances “not an acceptable use of funds, and in lots of circumstances will probably be towards the general public curiosity”.

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

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

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

The Ministry of Justice stated 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 normal 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, stated: “Clearly we welcome the federal government’s repeated dedication to laws, however 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 thought to be “no-go” zones due to the chance 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, stated it was “very important” that ministers introduce “particular laws to sort out 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 legislation companies.

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

Discreet Legislation stated: “It’s public information that Discreet Legislation LLP acted for Mr Prigozhin and our place is that always we complied absolutely with our authorized {and professional} obligations. We don’t take into account it acceptable to remark additional whereas there are ongoing SRA enquiries.” 

The regulator printed a thematic assessment of 25 legislation companies on Slapps in February concluding that there was “good observe”. Nevertheless, it added, there have been “areas the place companies wanted to do higher”.

Back To Top