Latest news with #Slapps
The Herald Scotland
30-07-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Foreign repression on UK soil rising ‘unchecked', MPs and peers warn
MI5 investigations into threats from other states have increased 48% since 2022, the report said, while committee chairman Lord David Alton warned the rise was 'going unchecked'. He said: 'This risks undermining the UK's ability to protect the human rights of its citizens and those who have sought safety within its borders. 'We have seen prominent cases of Hong Kongers with bounties placed on their heads, Iran intimidating journalists – but evidence submitted to the inquiry suggest this may be the tip of the iceberg.' The warning comes amid rising concern about transnational repression, including reports that China has offered rewards for people turning in pro-democracy Hong Kong activists based in the UK. Last month, Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee warned that Iran had attempted to kidnap or murder at least 15 UK-based people since 2022, while Russia has also targeted dissidents including the attempt to kill Sergei and Yulia Skripal with Novichok in 2018. While the cross-party human rights committee said China, Russia and Iran were the 'most flagrant' perpetrators of transnational repression in the UK, it highlighted evidence suggesting a string of other countries including India, Rwanda, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain had sought to target people in Britain. MPs and peers said they had also received 'substantial' evidence of intimidation by the Eritrean government, including surveillance of anti-government activists and infiltration of community groups and churches in an effort to isolate opponents of the regime. The committee went on to criticise Interpol, saying the organisation had refused to acknowledge misuse of 'red notices' – international requests for an arrest – to harass dissidents or take any steps to address this. Almost half of the 6,550 public red notices currently in circulation have been issued at Russia's request. Lord Alton said: 'We want to see a two-pronged approach from the Government. 'More needs to be done to give support and protection to the individuals and communities most at risk of transnational repression. 'We also want to see transnational repression prioritised in diplomatic relations and leadership at an international level to tackle the misuse and exploitation of systems of justice to silence and intimidate.' As well as pressing Interpol for action on abuse of red notices, the committee urged the Government to provide more training on transnational repression for police officers in the UK and greater protection from vexatious lawsuits known as Slapps (strategic lawsuits against public participation). The committee also called for China to be placed in the highest tier of the foreign influence registration scheme that came into effect last month, saying its omission risked 'undermining the credibility and coherence' of the scheme given the extent of Chinese transnational repression. An Interpol spokesperson said: 'Every year, thousands of the world's most serious criminals are arrested thanks to Interpol's systems. 'Children are saved from sexual exploitation and terrorists, cyber criminals and traffickers are brought to justice. 'Interpol knows red notices are powerful tools for law enforcement co-operation, which is why we have robust processes for ensuring that all Interpol notices and diffusions comply with our rules. 'Our constitution forbids Interpol from undertaking activities of a political, military, religious or racial character and all our databases and activities must also comply with the universal declaration for human rights.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'We take the threat of transnational repression extremely seriously. 'Any attempts by a foreign state to coerce, intimidate, harass, or harm individuals on UK soil are considered a threat to our national security and sovereignty, and will not be tolerated. 'The committee's review echoes many of the same findings and recommendations from the Defending Democracy Taskforce report on TNR, published in May, and we are already taking action arising from those recommendations to further strengthen our response.'
Irish Times
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
Proposed defamation law reforms fall short of addressing free-speech concerns, say campaigners
Defamation legislation passed in the Dáil last week falls short of what is required to address adequately serious free-speech concerns, a coalition of media, journalism and free speech organisations has said. Thirty organisations including the National Union of Journalists , RTÉ and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties signed a statement calling on members of the Seanad to amend the Bill to include provisions to counter the use of so-called Slapps in areas such as copyright, data protection and privacy in addition to defamation, which is currently addressed. Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (Slapps) are legal actions taken, often by large corporate entities or wealthy individuals, to intimidate critics, often journalists or activists. The intention is often to shut down public debate or criticism by bringing an action the other party does not have the resources to fight. These have been widely criticised as a threat to free speech, transparency and the media. READ MORE The Ireland Anti-Slapp Network, which includes prominent lawyers and academics, described the present wording of the Bill as 'a missed opportunity to protect the freedom of expression that is the lifeblood of our democracy'. It said it had engaged with Government throughout a consultation process and suggested a number of targeted amendments it believed would 'significantly strengthen' the legislation, but these were not incorporated. 'While the Bill brings in provisions that give effect to aspects of the EU Anti-Slapp Directive, it falls short of transposing the directive's full set of minimum standards and protections, which Ireland is legally required to implement in full by May 2026″ the group says. Jessica Ní Mhainín, head of policy and campaigns at Index on Censorship said it was important that the Defamation (Amendment) Bill was changed. 'Its complex and flawed provisions risk becoming tools only accessible to those with significant legal resources – not the individuals most often targeted with SLAPPs,' she said. 'We need the senators to take action now to stop this inadequate Bill from being passed into law.' During a debate on the Bill in the Seanad on Wednesday, Fine Gael Senator Linda Nelson Murray said Ireland had the same number of defamation cases with 5.3 million people as the entire UK, which has a population of 68 million. The State 'continues to record the highest per capita rate of defamation litigation in the common-law world', she said. Ms Nelson Murray called for the introduction of a statutory harm test in defamation legislation to mirror the one in the UK 'where a statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant'. Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan said the biggest issue with current defamation law 'is the extent to which people are defamed online by anonymous, unknown individuals'. The proposed legislation includes a provision for someone to go to the Circuit Court and get an order for the service provider to identify the person who has been defaming them. It provides protection for 'fair and reasonable publication' and safeguards against Slapps in a bid to 'prevent the misuse of defamation laws to stifle public-interest reporting', he said. The Bill aimed to reduce legal costs and delays, support easier access to justice and provide 'enhanced protection for responsible public-interest journalism'. Mr O'Callaghan said abolishing juries 'will and should reduce the incidence of excessive or disproportionate awards'. Independent Senator Michael McDowell warned that if defamation cases 'can only be decided by a judge sitting alone' this would not be 'a happy change in our law'. In five or 10 years' time 'people in the media who want to get rid of all juries in all defamation actions' will question a judge who rules a number of times against media organisations and disbelieve 'particular kinds of witnesses', he said. Sinn Féin Senator Nicole Ryan said that by removing juries the Government would 'take a sledgehammer to a core principle of our legal system'.
Irish Times
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
Dáil is expected to pass Bill reforming defamation law this week
The Dáil is expected to pass the remaining stages of the Defamation Bill this week, clearing the path for the legislation to proceed to the Seanad. A number of government and opposition amendments are to be considered in the Dáil, with Sinn Féin seeking to have the Bill amended to allow the retention of juries in defamation cases. Abolishing juries in these cases is one of the key provisions of the Bill and is a move long sought by media organisations keen to reduce the cost and length of defamation actions. Juries in personal injury cases were abolished many years ago. The Bill also introduces protections for media organisations against strategic lawsuits against public participation – or 'Slapps' – which are defamation actions taken by usually rich or powerful individuals designed to intimidate media organisations in their coverage of such people. READ MORE The amendments introduce a power for the High Court to award damages against a party which takes a 'Slapp' action against a media outlet. Having been initiated by the previous government, the Bill was reintroduced to the Dáil order paper in spring and is now expected to passed by the Oireachtas this year. The Bill also contains measures to reduce legal costs in defamation cases as well as provisions designed to make it less costly for plaintiffs to obtain the identity of people who post defamatory content online. There is also a new defence for retailers subjected to defamation claims for challenging people on whether they have paid before leaving a shop. Sinn Féin amendments seeking the retention of juries in defamation cases were previously put during the committee stage of the bill in April, but were rejected by the Government. When opposition TDs pointed out to the Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan that he had cautioned against the abolition of juries when he was a backbencher in the last government, Mr O'Callaghan said 'one of the consequences of membership of a political party is the need for compromise'. Mr O'Callaghan said he supported the Fianna Fáil manifesto of the last general election supporting the proposed legislation. 'A programme for government was agreed between the two parties. I am a minister in that government,' he said. 'I am bound, because of the principles of compromise and collective responsibility, to give effect to what was agreed in the programme for government.'
Irish Times
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
Dáil votes by 86 to 64 to abolish juries in defamation cases
Juries in High Court defamation actions are set to be abolished after the Dáil voted by 86 to 64 for their removal. Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan had opposed the move as a Government backbencher, when the Defamation (Amendment) Bill was introduced last year. At the time he described the measure as 'short-sighted' and 'not fully thought out'. But the Minister told TDs that being in a political party 'requires compromise'. He said there has been a general election since he made those remarks, the legislation is part of the programme for government and he is bound by that as a member of Cabinet. READ MORE The Dáil was debating the legislation, which aims to reform the State's defamation laws, including relating to online trolling, and to reduce legal costs for parties involved. The Bill also introduces protection against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (Slapps), which are seen as a threat to press freedom and are usually taken against individual journalists. Independent TD Catherine Connolly had called on the Minister to show 'moral courage and leadership' by opposing the abolition of juries. 'I wouldn't like to be sitting in your position and having to eat my words. I don't think you should eat your words. I think you should be proud of them,' she said. There has been a belief among media defendants that without juries, monetary award values will reduce and defamation cases would not last as long. Previously, Mr O'Callaghan's assessment was that this would not be the case, she said. She quoted his remarks: 'If we abolish juries, I can guarantee [to] the House that we will develop a whole body of jurisprudence that will result in cases being repeatedly appealed to the Court of Appeal and probably the Supreme Court.' It is seldom the case that jury decisions are appealed, he had added. Ms Connolly said to abolish juries 'is nothing less than a bowing to vested interests'. Sinn Féin justice spokesman Matt Carthy said his party opposes the abolition of juries as a matter of principle and would oppose the entire Bill on this basis. He added that 'it would leave Ireland as a complete outlier in common law jurisdictions globally'. The Law Society and Bar Council have pointed to the importance of members of the public determining issues relating to damage to reputation and freedom of expression, and he sees this as 'eminently sensible'. Social Democrats justice spokesman Gary Gannon said juries play an important role to ensure fairness, particularly when 'powerful entities' are involved. He added that there is no evidence jury actions are more costly. Labour TD Marie Sherlock said the legislation is now out of date. She said legal fees in defamation cases are higher than in any other civil action and the legislation should change that practice. She proposed an amendment that would mean juries have a role in determining questions of fact but no role in the assessment of damages. Mr O'Callaghan said it would be inappropriate and would divide functions between the jury and the judge. The amendment was rejected by 86 to 64 votes. The Minister said one of the consequences of being in a political party 'is the need and necessity for compromise'. There had been a general election, and Fianna Fáil put forward a manifesto that he supported, which included the passage of the Defamation Bill. Mr O'Callaghan added it was 'not a question of morality but a recognition of the compromise that is required if one becomes a minister in government and if one signs up to a programme for government that contains a principle that was in conflict with what I had said previously'.
The Independent
27-02-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Guido Fawkes editor to settle Dale Vince libel case over pro-Hamas allegations
Paul Staines, the founding editor of the Guido Fawkes website, has agreed to pay almost £10,000 in damages to green energy industrialist Dale Vince to settle a High Court libel claim. The lawsuit was initiated following two articles published in March 2024, which Mr Vince claimed had libelled him by falsely alleging he supports Hamas. The articles followed a Times Radio interview given by the Labour donor in October 2023. During the radio interview, which occurred two days after the Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7, Mr Vince stated that "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" as part of a broader discussion about the issue. Mr Vince's legal team said that Guido Fawkes had published two articles and a 16-second extract from the interview, which included the quote, but that his comment had been "fatally distorted". Following a judge's ruling on preliminary issues in the libel case, Guido Fawkes announced that Mr Staines would pay Mr Vince £9,995 in damages to settle the claim, without issuing an apology. Mr Staines would also cover Mr Vince's legal costs, estimated to be around £100,000. Mr Staines must also remove the allegations from his website and social media within seven days, and cannot repeat the claims. It comes after Associated Newspapers Ltd, the publisher of the Daily Mail, settled a similar libel claim brought by Mr Vince earlier in the week. In a statement, Mr Staines said: 'My decision to settle is a purely commercial one, similar to the decision that Associated Newspapers and GB News made. 'Following the adverse ruling on meaning the Guido Fawkes Organisation simply does not have the resources to risk a ruinous High Court legal battle of this kind involving appeals against a wealthy claimant.' He continued: 'I am strongly of the opinion that this type of action, which the claimant has publicly characterised in partisan political terms, should be prohibited under the proposed cross-party supported legislation to block Slapps (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). 'We will make no apology for closely scrutinising wealthy party political donors who do business in Government-regulated industries.' Mr Justice Pepperall decided several early issues in the case on Wednesday, including the 'natural and ordinary' meaning of the articles and whether they were statements of fact or opinion. Discussing the first Guido Fawkes article, the judge rejected Mr Vince's claim that it 'alleged his support for the 7 October atrocity', but 'declined to make a finding of some broader support for Hamas'. In a statement, Mr Vince claimed he was 'seriously defamed' by the articles and that he believed his case 'is the first successfully pursued against Paul Staines and his Guido Fawkes operation'. He added that he was 'happy to have burst his (Mr Staines') bubble' and added that Mr Staines must be 'diligent and accurate with what he publishes'. Mr Vince is also taking legal action against Richard Tice, the deputy leader of the Reform UK party, and Lord Shaun Bailey, in separate libel cases in relation to the same accusations.
