How the rich and powerful try to intimidate the press
Sep 23, 2023
auto_awesome
This podcast explores the misuse of libel laws by the rich and powerful to intimidate the press. It delves into strategic lawsuits against public participation (slaps) and reveals tactics used by the wealthy to silence media organizations. The discussion also highlights the challenges faced by newspapers in legal disputes and the exploitation of the burden of proof in libel cases. The podcast emphasizes the need for a model law to protect journalists and publishers and provides recommendations for supporting quality journalism.
The costs and uncertainties involved in defending publications in libel cases can be overwhelming, raising questions about the efficacy of current legal systems.
The rise of strategic lawsuits against public participation highlights the need for legislation that protects public interest journalism and deters frivolous lawsuits.
Deep dives
Case 1: Reheem Brenneman, American oil and real estate magnate and convicted fraudster
Reheem Brenneman dropped a libel claim against The Sunday Times over a story that exposed how he used well-known charities as a front for his offshore companies. Despite resisting publication, the story highlighted suspicious activity, and Brenneman later sued. Although The Sunday Times believed their claims were true, the case dragged on for two years, with Brenneman repeatedly delaying proceedings. Eventually, he was convicted of wire fraud, but as his debts exceeded $300 million, The Sunday Times will likely never receive the £500,000 he owes. This case raises questions about the efficacy of defending publications, as the costs and uncertainties can be overwhelming.
Case 2: David Hunt, head of an organized criminal gang
The Sunday Times faced a libel case from David Hunt, whom they had reported as the head of an organized criminal gang involved in drug trafficking and murder. The team at The Sunday Times had convincing evidence, but it became a challenging battle due to potential threats to witnesses and journalists involved. Ultimately, The Sunday Times won the case, proving the truth of their claims. However, if they had backed down, they would have been forced to apologize and pay legal costs, leaving them unable to report anything further about Hunt. This case emphasizes the difficult choices faced when fighting libel claims and the potential risks and costs involved.
Case 3: Catherine Belton's book 'Putin's People' and the role of Russian oligarchs
The publication of the book 'Putin's People' by Catherine Belton led to a libel case brought by Roman Abramovich. While the judge found some elements of the book defamatory, the case raised questions about the proximity of oligarchs to Putin and the movement of Russian money to London. The case garnered attention due to concerns about the infiltration of Russian influence and misuse of legal proceedings to conceal information. Although the case was settled, it contributed to the ongoing discussion about the need for legislation to address oppressive and abusive libel cases, and to protect public interest journalism.
The Anti-SLAPP Campaign and the Push for New Laws
The rise of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) has sparked the Anti-SLAPP Campaign, which aims to introduce laws that would swiftly dismiss oppressive cases. The proposed legislation would shift the starting point to the public interest, making it easier to dispose of cases that hinder public interest journalism. The model law suggests that claimants should bear the costs of abusive cases, providing a deterrent against frivolous lawsuits. News organizations recognize the expensive nature of good journalism and the importance of committing resources to defend against oppressive cases that threaten their ability to report the truth.
This week the editors of The Times and The Sunday Times wrote to the justice secretary, calling for a crackdown on the misuse of libel laws by the super-rich. Together with more than 60 editors, reporters and lawyers, they called for a specific law to address Slapps – strategic lawsuits against public participation.
In this bonus Saturday episode, we’re listening back to a conversation with Times Media’s editorial legal director Pia Sarma, first broadcast in January, in which she argues it's time to restore the balance between rich claimants and journalists pursuing the truth.
This podcast was brought to you thanks to the support of readers of The Times and The Sunday Times. Subscribe today: thetimes.co.uk/storiesofourtimes.
Guest: Pia Sarma, Editorial Legal Director, Times Media.
Read more: 'Editors call for anti-Slapp law to protect investigative journalism' https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/editors-call-for-anti-slapp-law-to-protect-investigative-journalism-wxhjt0kfc