Skip to content

Eliot Higgins, founder of Bellingcat, an open source news agency

Article by Foreign Policy Centre

February 15, 2023

Eliot Higgins, founder of Bellingcat, an open source news agency

“Prigozhin’s SLAPP case against me was one of the most blatant SLAPP cases I’ve encountered, with evidence indicating it was a direct response to EU sanctions against Prigozhin in part referencing Bellingcat’s work as justification for the sanctions. I also found myself in the perverse situation of Prigozhin receiving sanctions relief from the UK Treasury so he could sue me for saying the thing that he was sanctioned for. It’s clear the current UK laws around SLAPPs are not fit for purpose, and urgent reform is needed.”

– Eliot Higgins, November 2022

 

STATUS: Concluded – Filed in December 2021, the case was thrown out of court in April 2022. Ongoing questions remain around the granting of licences by the UK Government to allow Yevgeny Prigozhin to pursue the legal case in the UK, despite being under sanctions since 2020.

 

 

In December 2021, Eliot Higgins had a libel case filed against him in London by Yevgeny Prigozhin, a Russian oligarch often referred to as ‘Putin’s Chef’. The claims related to five tweets, published in August 2020, in which the Bellingcat founder had linked to the investigations published by Bellingcat, CNN and Der Spiegel that reported on Prigozhin’s connections with the Wagner Group. None of the media outlets were sued. Prigozhin had been sanctioned by the UK Government in October 2020 for significant foreign mercenary activity in Libya and multiple breaches of the UN arms embargo, which has been linked to the Wagner Group, a private military company.[1] At the time, Prigozhin denied any association with the Wagner Group, which was also sanctioned in March 2022.[2]

 

At an early hearing, on 23rd March 2022, Edward Miller from Discreet Law LLP successfully applied to withdraw the law firm from representing Prigozhin and asked for said withdrawal to be discussed in private with the judge as it regarded confidential information.[3] The first substantive hearing in the case was scheduled for 13th April 2022 but was postponed due to a last minute request from Prigozhin due to his lack of legal representation. On 18th May 2022, Justice Nicklin struck out the claim from the High Court as Prigozhin repeatedly failed to comply with court orders.[4] According to a press release by Higgins’ lawyers McCue Jury and Partners: “This followed [Prigozhin’s] legal representatives, Discreet Law, withdrawing due—according to Prigozhin—the increased negative attention representing Prigozhin would attract following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine”.[5]

 

In order for a person under sanctions to be able to pay for legal services in the UK, they would have needed a licence from the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) in HM Treasury. It was initially thought that this licence was given as Prigozhin succeeded in serving Higgins with the lawsuit in London’s High Court, however how this process had happened was unclear until January 2023 (see reference to the openDemocracy article below).[6] However, Higgins’ lawyers also noted in their May 2022 press release: “Discreet Law did not see through the request to HM Treasury for a licence for payment on account of costs that would have enabled Higgins to enforce any costs order issued by the Court against Prigozhin.” This means that Higgins’ was left out of pocket for this failed case against him.

 

Higgins’ lawyers statement also confirmed that they had made a complaint to the SRA and acknowledged that “Free Speech NGOs, such as FPC and Index on Censorship, recognise Prigozhin’s case against Mr Higgins as a Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP).”[7] In September 2022, Higgins posted a twitter thread in which he pointed out that Prigozhin has now admitted his involvement with Wagner and cited it as “a perfect example of how crooks like Prigozhin get to game the UK legal system to attack genuine investigative work”.[8]

 

In November 2022, Eliot Higgins’ lawyer, Matthew Jury, spoke at an evening event Legal intimidation, legal ethics & the role of lawyers? held as part of the UK Anti-SLAPP Conference, organised by FPC and our partners the Justice for Journalists Foundation and the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute. The full event is available to watch here.

 

In January 2023, the case came to prominence again when openDemocracy published an article titled ‘Revealed: UK government helped sanctioned Putin ally sue British journalist’, in which it was revealed that OFSI had granted licences for Discreet Law to work on behalf of Prigozhin, and moreover agreed for lawyers to travel to St Petersburg to meet with Prigozhin to discuss the case.[9]

 

FPC’s Director Susan Coughtrie was quoted in the article, stating that the decision-making process for granting licences needed “much closer scrutiny”.

 

“This could not be more pertinent now, with many more individuals sanctioned in light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine,” … “We need assurances from the UK government, which has already committed to addressing SLAPPs, that sanctioned individuals will not be given licence to abuse the UK courts to bully journalists and suppress information in the public interest.”

 

In a subsequent House of Lords Digital and Communications Select Committee session on the 24th January, FPC’s Director raised Higgins’ case and the concerns around the granting of licences by OFSI to sanctioned individuals to pursue SLAPP cases in the UK. The session can be watched here.

 

This development in Higgins’ case subsequently provoked considerably outcry in Parliament where it was raised by several MPs and Peers, with David Lammy MP filing an urgent question in the House of Commons asking the Secretary of State for the Foreign Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs to make a statement regarding the UK’s involvement in assisting Prigozhin.[10] In response, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, James Cartlidge, stated that the government was committed to SLAPPs reform and regarding sanctioned individuals he added: “we will undertake an internal review to see how such cases are considered in the future.”[11]

 

This case is covered in the London Calling report on pages: 23, 34, 38-39, 80, & 86-87.

 

[1] FCDO, UK sanctions Alexey Navalny’s poisoners, Gov.uk, October 2020, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-sanctions-alexey-navalnys-poisoners

[2] FCDO, Foreign Secretary announces 65 new Russian sanctions to cut off vital industries fueling Putin’s war machine, Gov.uk, March 2022, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/foreign-secretary-announces-65-new-russian-sanctions-to-cut-off-vital-industries-fuelling-putins-war-machine

[3] Ibid.

[4] Jonathan Ames, ‘Putin’s chef’ loses court case against Bellingcat founder, The Times, May 2022, https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putins-chef-loses-court-case-against-bellingcat-founder-cvnmjghvg

[5] McCue, Jury & Partners, Yevgeniy Prigozhin’s SLAPP action against Bellingcat founder is struck out, May 2022, https://www.mccue-law.com/yevgeniy-prigozhins-action-against-bellingcat-founder-struck-out/

[6] CoE’s Safety of Journalists Platform, British Journalist Eliot Higgins Facing SLAPP from Russian Oligarch in London, April 2022, https://fom.coe.int/en/alerte/detail/107637414;globalSearch=true

[7] McCue, Jury & Partners, Yevgeniy Prigozhin’s SLAPP action against Bellingcat founder is struck out, May 2022, https://www.mccue-law.com/yevgeniy-prigozhins-action-against-bellingcat-founder-struck-out/

[8] Eliot Higgins, Twitter Post, September 2022, https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/1442501201468264452

[9] Jim Fitzpatrick, Revealed: UK government helped sanctioned Putin ally sue British journalist’, openDemocracy, January 2023, https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/prigozhin-government-russia-ukraine-hack-libel-slapp/

[10] House of Commons, Urgent Question: Wagner Group: Sanctions Regime, Hansard, January 2023, https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2023-01-25/debates/54EFDF55-C956-45FC-8500-C47444EAF09F/WagnerGroupSanctionsRegime

[11] Ibid.

Topics
Civil Society
Freedom of Expression
Investigative journalism
Media and Online Freedom
SLAPPs
Regions
Europe
United Kingdom
Former Soviet Union
Russia
Footnotes
    Related Articles

    Op-ed | After the Locals: How Reform and the Greens Could Reshape Foreign Policy

    12/05/26
    Article by Foreign Policy Centre

    Op-ed | International Aid as a Line of Defence: What Happens to Human Security Without Soft Power?

    24/04/26
    Article by Anna Chernova

    Inside the No Kings Movement: A Conversation about Protest in Today’s America

    13/04/26
    Article by Dr Andrew Gawthorpe

    Catherine Belton, Journalist and Author of ‘Putin’s People: How the KGB Took Back Russia and Then Took on the West’

    Article by Foreign Policy Centre

    Catherine Belton, Journalist and Author of ‘Putin’s People: How the KGB Took Back Russia and Then Took on the West’

    “The cases really show just how important it is that there are better defences for journalists. No matter how good the sourcing is on some of these claims, and no matter how great the public interest, the cases are just too expensive to defend. The system is stacked in favour of deep pocketed litigants from the outset. My cases are now pretty well known, but they are just the tip of an iceberg; there are journalists who have been censoring themselves, particularly about the activities of Russian oligarchs, for a very long time…”[1]

    – Catherine Belton, March 2022

     

    STATUS: Concluded – Four cases filed between May-March 2021, meaning hearing in July, during which two cases were settled, one case discontinued in November and the last case settled in December 2021.

     

     

    Catherine Belton and her publisher HarperCollins were subject to several legal cases in connection to the book ‘Putin’s People: How the KGB Took Back Russia and Then Took on the West’, published in 2020. Between March/May 2021, four Russian oligarchs and the Russian state owned oil company, Rosneft, stated their intention to sue. Of these five cases, four made it to a preliminary hearing held in July 2021. During this hearing, HarperCollins decided to settle two of the cases, which had only been brought against them, by the Russian billionaires, Petr Aven and Mikhail Fridman. They claimed the book contained inaccurate personal data concerning them, with Fridman also suing for libel. HarperCollins agreed to make minor amendments to wording within four paragraphs and a footnote in future editions of the book, but there was no acceptance that the texts had been defamatory.

     

    In November 2021, the judgments regarding the ‘legal meaning’ in the cases brought by the Roman Abramovich and Rosneft were handed down by Justice Tipples. In relation to the claims brought by Rosneft, Justice Tipples found that three of the four passages complained about were not defamatory and two days later Rosneft decided to discontinue its claim.[2] In relation to the claims brought by Abramovich, Justice Tipples ruled against Abramovich on one meaning claiming that the book meant that he had a corrupt relationship with Putin. Instead, she found the book said that he was under Putin’s control. However, on other meanings she ruled that the allegations in the book were presented as statements of fact, rather than expressions of opinion, and would have needed to be defended as such at trial.[3]

     

    A month later, on 22nd December 2021, it was announced that Abramovich had decided to settle the case with HarperCollins and Belton.[4] The settlement meant that both sides covered their own legal fees and no damages were awarded, minor amendments were made but the main claims remained intact in the book.[5] As part of the settlement, HarperCollins agreed to make a payment to charity in relation to one error involving Abramovich’s ownership of the company Sibneft. In a statement the publisher offered an apology that “some aspects of the book were not as clear as they would have liked them to have been and are happy to have now clarified the text”, adding: “While the book always included a denial that Mr Abramovich was acting under anybody’s direction when he purchased Chelsea, the new edition will include a more detailed explanation of Mr Abramovich’s motivations for buying the club.”[6] In an additional statement shared by HarperCollins, the publisher commented that they had been “under attack” from five oligarchs and a state owned oil company all with “vast resources at his disposal”, and stressed that “each of these claims has been resolved with no damages or costs payable by HarperCollins”.[7] HarperCollins and Catherine Belton’s lawyer Caroline Kean, a partner at the law firm Wiggin, later commented that while she had “worked on cases as complex as one of these…never ever have we come across a coordinated attack on a book in this way”.[8]

     

    In June 2021, Abramovich had also lodged a defamation action against HarperCollins in Australia and, while that was withdrawn as part of the settlement, HarperCollins asked the Australian courts to rule on whether filing the same claims in two jurisdictions was an abuse of process. It has been estimated that if the libel trial had gone ahead in the High Court and Australia the legal bill was likely to have exceeded over £5 million. While the cases linked to Putin’s People were significant in highlighting the issue of SLAPPs in the UK, they also demonstrated issues within the UK media for reporting on complex legal cases. In March 2022, while giving oral evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Belton noted that “On the Abramovich case, we were able to keep in the book most of the main claims that he attacked. For instance, on the Chelsea purchase, when we settled, Mr Abramovich’s presspeople got most of the UK press to write that we had admitted that it was a false claim and that it had been removed from the book. In fact, that wasn’t the case— far from it. In fact, that claim is still there— the quotes are still there.”[9]

     

    At an event held at the Frontline Club, in February 2022, Arabella Pike, Publishing Director at HarperCollins, has commented on how there were a number of “disobliging” articles in the tabloid press that “utterly distorted” what had happened in court. Pike acknowledged that they were perhaps not adequately prepared for the challenge of informing journalists “up against a deadline to get 800 words up on to a website, within half an hour, [how] to deal with an 80 page, very complex legal judgement.” How a case is reported is important, because otherwise it can play into a spinning exercise by the claimant, which further undermines the journalists’ credibility, even if as in Belton’s case, the changes were very minor and the main thrust of the claims under question remained in the book.

     

    The use of GDPR claims by Fridman and the Aven, was also an interesting aspect to these cases. Belton, again in her oral evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, stated: “In the Fridman and the Aven cases, for instance, they were essentially using GDPR claims…to whitewash their histories… It was a reputation issue for [Aven]. He did not want to be seen as having supported Putin in any way. However, because he personally was behind on the statute of limitations [for libel]—it was already beyond the year, his lawyers issued a data protection claim saying it was inaccurate. It was accurate. It was an issue of reputation rather than accuracy.” Belton added: “The changes we made were absolutely tiny, but again, they made much hay of this in the press, claiming victory even though we had made very small changes indeed. Essentially, these changes were made because we had too many cases to deal with and not because there was anything wrong or we couldn’t defend them.”[10] To note, there is a much longer statute of limitations on filing a GDPR claim of six years, compared to one year for libel cases.

     

    All the claimants who brought cases against Belton and HarperCollins have since been sanctioned in the aftermath of the Russian invasion in Ukraine in February 2022. Speaking to the Committee for the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill in October 2022, Belton explained: “The UK, like many other countries, really welcomed capital from places like Russia with open arms for the past twenty years. It’s certainly a place that Russian oligarchs have flocked to, partly because they want to be part of the UK establishment, but partly because they have obviously taken advantage of our lax legislation and lax regulation… Without enabling journalists, and other financial watchdogs to look at these entities without fear of getting crushed by enormous lawsuits, that are going to cost more than anyone’s budget allows, then we are going to be open to this type of abuse of our system forever.”[11]

     

    In November 2022, Catherine Belton spoke at an evening event “The Great Enabler: SLAPPs, Sanctions and the UK’s Kleptocracy Problem” held as part of the UK Anti-SLAPP Conference, organised by FPC and our partners the Justice for Journalists Foundation and the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute. The event was chaired by Edward Lucas, Author and Fellow at CEPA, and speaking alongside Belton were Galina Arapova (Media Defence Lawyer from Russia), Franz Wild, (Editor of The Enablers Project at The Bureau for Investigative Journalists) and Dame Margaret Hodge MP (Chair of the APPG on Anti-Corruption and Responsible Tax).

     

     

    The full event is available to watch here.

     

    These cases are covered in the London Calling report on pages: 21, 29, 33-40, 46, 60, 62, 65-66, 68, 84 & 90.

     

    [1] Foreign Affairs Committee, Oral evidence: Use of strategic lawsuits against public participation, HC 1196, House of Commons, Tuesday 15 March 2022, https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/9907/pdf/

    [2] Judgement in Rosneft v HarperCollins and Catherine Belton, [2021] EWHC 3141 (QB), November 2021, https://www.judiciary.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2021/11/Rosneft-v-HarperCollins-judgment-241121.pdf

    [3] Judgement in Abramovich v HarperCollins and Catherine Belton, [2021] EWHC 3154 (QB), November 2021, https://www.judiciary.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2021/11/Abramovich-v-HarperCollins-judgment-241121.pdf

    [4] Luke Harding, Roman Abramovich settles libel claim over Putin biography, December 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/22/roman-abramovich-settles-libel-claim-over-putin-biography

    [5] Catherine Belton, Twitter post, Twitter December 2021, https://twitter.com/CatherineBelton/status/1473825261774901252

    [6] HarperCollins, Putin’s People: settlement reached in Roman Abramovich v HarperCollins and Catherine Belton, December 2021, https://corporate.harpercollins.co.uk/press-releases/putins-people-settlement-reached-in-roman-abramovich-v-harpercollins-and-catherine-belton/

    [7] HarperCollins UK, Twitter post, Twitter, December 2021, https://twitter.com/HarperCollinsUK/status/1473598851307413509/photo/1

    [8] Comments by Caroline Kean, at a Frontline Club event (20 min mark).

    [9] Foreign Affairs Committee, Oral evidence: Use of strategic lawsuits against public participation, HC 1196, House of Commons, Tuesday 15 March 2022, https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/9907/pdf/

    [10] Ibid.

    [11] Catherine Belton, Oral Evidence to the Committee for the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, parliamentlive.tv, October 2022, https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/e93a30e9-e069-4d0f-9637-5403c7b735b2

    Topics
    Civil Society
    Freedom of Expression
    Investigative journalism
    Media and Online Freedom
    SLAPPs
    Regions
    Europe
    United Kingdom
    Former Soviet Union
    Russia
    Footnotes
      Related Articles

      Op-ed | After the Locals: How Reform and the Greens Could Reshape Foreign Policy

      12/05/26
      Article by Foreign Policy Centre

      Op-ed | International Aid as a Line of Defence: What Happens to Human Security Without Soft Power?

      24/04/26
      Article by Anna Chernova

      Inside the No Kings Movement: A Conversation about Protest in Today’s America

      13/04/26
      Article by Dr Andrew Gawthorpe

      Tom Burgis, Investigative journalist and author of ‘Kleptopia: How dirty money is conquering the world’

      Article by Foreign Policy Centre

      Tom Burgis, Investigative journalist and author of ‘Kleptopia: How dirty money is conquering the world’

      “Winning these cases,settling them and making them go away is not a complete victory. There is money that will not be got back that could have been spent on other books… [and] there is always a danger, as I know from conversations with colleagues, that you become an expensive and problematic journalist. In an era when the newspaper business model remains broken and oligarchs are amassing more and more wealth, this inequality of arms is extraordinary.”[1]

      – Tom Burgis, March 2022

       

      STATUS: Concluded – Two cases filed in the UK in August 2021, one thrown out of court and the other retracted in March 2022.

       

       

      Tom Burgis was subject to two legal cases relating to the publication of his book, ‘Kleptopia: How dirty money is conquering the world’, and related newspaper articles published in the Financial Times (FT).[2] The Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Limited (ENRC), whose business dealings are examined in Kleptopia, first initiated a case in the US courts against the US arm of HarperCollins seeking disclosure of wide-ranging information relating to Burgis’ book in September 2020.[3] In August 2021, ENRC launched legal action in the UK, claiming Burgis and HarperCollins had made a series of ‘untrue’ and ‘highly damaging’ allegations made about the company. Burgis was also jointly named in a separate legal case against his employer, the FT, in relation to articles they published related to the issues raised in Burgis’ book. To note, ENRC has initiated more than 18 legal proceedings in the US and the UK, against journalists, lawyers, investigators and the Serious Fraud Office.[4]

       

      At a meaning hearing, held on 2nd March 2022, Justice Nicklin dismissed ENRC’s case against Burgis and HarperCollins finding their claim that Burgis had defamed the company was without merit as only individuals can commit murder, not corporations. The judge awarded £50,000 in costs against ENRC and refused the company permission to appeal.[5] Burgis stated at the time, “It’s harder to imagine a higher public interest than reporting on the deaths of potential witnesses in a major criminal corruption case. I’m delighted that this attack on our journalism has failed”.[6] Meanwhile, HarperCollins reaffirmed its commitment to “defend our authors in the face of legal attacks from those who would seek to use the UK courts to silence them”.[7]

       

      In his oral evidence on SLAPPs at the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in March 2022, Burgis explained that; “What is happening here is that, especially in this moment when we are realising what a terrible threat dirty money is in our democracy, we turn to journalists and say ‘Ride to the rescue, This is your job. Please root out the dirty money wherever it is’, and what do we find? Our greatest obstacles are not GRU [the russian military agency] hit squads or cyber-attack teams; it is firms in London working, day in day out, to attack free speech in the interest of very rich and powerful people who rightly deserve scrutiny”.[8]

       

      Less than two weeks after Justice Nicklin’s judgment, ENRC withdrew its remaining case against Burgis and the FT on 14th March. Roula Khalaf, FT Editor, stated in response: “I’m pleased to hear of ENRC’s decision to withdraw a claim that was always without merit and had put Tom Burgis under enormous strain. The FT and all our reporters, including Tom, will continue to investigate the activities of businesses and individuals, however powerful or wealthy.”[9]

       

      Burgis’ case also sheds light on the psychological effects of these cases, and just how early in the process they begin. As part of his oral evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, he also detailed the tactics used by lawyers in the pre-action stage: “The psychological pressure that these firms begin to bear is really clever. The letters – such as those from Carter-Rusk, Schillings, Mishcon de Reya, Taylor Wessing and so on – are often written in a tone of righteous indignation, where the ‘journalist’ has behaved appallingly and in bad faith. There is never any question of, say, having made an honest mistake. I have spent quite a long time trying to realise why so many journalists – even really courageous ones – will recoil and walk away from a story when a letter from one of these firms comes in. it is because you risk humiliation in the public square. The letters go to your editors, publishers and lawyers, and you are cast as the most monstrous, scheming and corrupt version of yourself. That is how it works, quite apart from the massive threat of the costs”.[10]

       

      In November 2022, Burgis spoke about his experiences on a panel “The UK’s Anti-SLapp Reforms – a big enough step in the right direction?,” at the 2nd UK Anti-SLAPP Conference, organised by FPC with our partners the Justice for Journalists Foundation and the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute.

       

       

      The full panel discussion is available to watch here.

       

      These cases are covered in the London Calling report on pages: 21, 36-37, 41, 61-62, 64, 66, 68 & 84.

       

      [1] Foreign Affairs Committee, Oral evidence: Use of strategic lawsuits against public participation, HC 1196, House of Commons, Tuesday 15 March 2022, https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/9907/pdf/

      [2] Index on Censorship, Index condemns lawsuits brought by ENRC against Tom Burgis, October 2021, https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2021/10/index-condemns-lawsuits-brought-by-enrc-against-tom-burgis/

      [3] Reporters ’Committee for Freedom of the Press, In Re: Ex parte Application of ENRC Limited Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for Leave to Take Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceedings, December 2020, https://www.rcfp.org/briefs-comments/enrc-harper-collins-section-1782/

      [4] Index on Censorship, Index and 21 other organisations condemn lawsuits brought by ENRC against public watchdogs, June 2021, https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2021/06/lawsuits-brought-by-enrc-against-uk-serious-fraud-office-and-dechert-llp/

      [5] Dominic Casciani, Journalist wins ‘kleptocrat’ book High Court libel case, BBC News, March 2022, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60595266

      [6] Jane Croft, ENRC drops lawsuit against FT and journalist Tom Burgis, Financial Times, March 2022, https://www.ft.com/content/289f2603-1069-4554-af29-8d0af072edd2

      [7] HarperCollins UK, Twitter post, Twitter, March 2022, https://twitter.com/HarperCollinsUK/status/1499050568232353793?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

      [8] Foreign Affairs Committee, Oral evidence: Use of strategic lawsuits against public participation, HC 1196, House of Commons, Tuesday 15 March 2022, https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/9907/pdf/

      [9] Jane Croft, ENRC drops lawsuit against FT and journalist Tom Burgis, Financial Times, March 2022, https://www.ft.com/content/289f2603-1069-4554-af29-8d0af072edd2

      [10] Foreign Affairs Committee, Oral evidence: Use of strategic lawsuits against public participation, HC 1196, House of Commons, Tuesday 15 March 2022, https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/9907/pdf/

      Topics
      Civil Society
      Freedom of Expression
      Investigative journalism
      Media and Online Freedom
      SLAPPs
      Regions
      Europe
      United Kingdom
      Footnotes
        Related Articles

        Op-ed | After the Locals: How Reform and the Greens Could Reshape Foreign Policy

        12/05/26
        Article by Foreign Policy Centre

        Op-ed | International Aid as a Line of Defence: What Happens to Human Security Without Soft Power?

        24/04/26
        Article by Anna Chernova

        Inside the No Kings Movement: A Conversation about Protest in Today’s America

        13/04/26
        Article by Dr Andrew Gawthorpe

        Forensic News, a US based investigative news website, its founder Scott Stedman and others

        Article by Foreign Policy Centre

        Forensic News, a US based investigative news website, its founder Scott Stedman and others

        “Over the last 18 months, I have lived the increasingly too-common life of an investigative journalist who splits his time between researching and writing articles and tending to a lawsuit.”[1]

        – Scott Stedman, April 2022

         

        STATUS: Settled – Began in July 2020, with a preliminary judgment on jurisdiction in January 2021 and a Court of Appeal judgment in December 2021. Ahead of a court hearing scheduled for 2 March 2023, it was confirmed that the case had been settled, with written statements being published on the Forensic News website, as well as the Twitter accounts of Scott Stedman and the other involved journalists. The seven articles and one podcast episode that formed the basis of the SLAPP have been taken down and will no longer be publicly available.

         

         

        Forensic News, an investigative news website, its founder Scott Stedman and several of its journalists, all based in the United States, have been subject to legal action in the UK brought by British-Israeli security consultant and businessman Walter Soriano since July 2020. Soriano made five claims in relation to data protection, libel, misuse of private information, harassment, and malicious falsehoods, relating to ten internet publications and various social media postings published between June 2019 and June 2020.

         

        Forensic News started writing about Soriano after he was summoned by the US Senate Intelligence Committee, which was reportedly interested in Soriano’s connections to several people of interest. This included the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a former business associate of Donald Trump’s campaign chairman Paul Manafort.[2] In evidence given to the US Congress in April 2022, Stedman noted that US based lawyers for Mr Deripaska initially wrote to him and threatened legal action while also demanding that Stedman provide information about his sources. However, legal action against Stedman and Forensic News, based in California, where strong anti-SLAPP legislation is in place, never materialised.[3]

         

        In January 2021, a preliminary ruling on jurisdiction in the UK dismissed the GDPR, harassment and malicious falsehood claims, but allowed Soriano to proceed with his libel claim and privacy claim (although this latter claim only pending the success of a libel claim).[4] In December 2021, in what is believed to be the first appellate decision on the territorial reach of the UK GDPR, the Court of Appeal overturned the earlier ruling and gave Soriano permission to bring a data protection claim.[5] The court held that subscriptions to the news site, facilitated through the Patreon platform – paid in sterling or euros – amounted to ‘stable arrangements’ to satisfy article 3(1) of the GDPR.[6] According to court documents, since opening up its Patreon subscriptions from USD only in August 2020, Forensic News had received 3 Patreon subscriptions in EUR and 3 in GBP.[7]

         

        As a result of losing the December 2021 appeal, Forensic News owes Soriano ‘tens of thousands’ in costs.[8] As Stedman explained in his testimony to Congress: “For over a year, we contested the jurisdiction of the lawsuit. I have never stepped foot in the United Kingdom. Forensic News has no corporate presence in the UK and the vast majority of my readers are in the US”.[9] Yet there is an expectation that the defendants should pay the claimant for losing this appeal, before even reaching a trial. Currently, the cases are only continuing against the outlet, Stedman and one of his colleagues, with the other contributors having decided to settle. Mr Soriano has denied all wrongdoing alleged against him.The next hearing is expected on 2nd-3rd March 2023.

         

        In November 2022, Forensic News founder Scott Stedman spoke on the panel “SLAPPs in today’s independent investigative media landscape” held as part of the UK Anti-SLAPP Conference, organised by FPC and our partners the Justice for Journalists Foundation and the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute.

         

         

        The full event is available to watch here.

         

        This case is covered in the London Calling report on pages: 30-31, 60 & 65.

         

        [1] Helsinki Commission, Helsinki Committee session on ‘Countering Oligarchs, Enablers, and Lawfare’, YouTube, April 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0YPcXB1W8I

        [2] Index on Censorship, Fifteen organisations condemn lawsuit against Forensic News, deeming it a SLAPP, February 2022, https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2022/02/organisations-condemn-forensic-news-lawsuit-as-slapp/

        [3] Helsinki Commission, Helsinki Committee session on ‘Countering Oligarchs, Enablers, and Lawfare’, YouTube, April 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0YPcXB1W8I

        [4] ​​Bailii, England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions, Soriano v Forensic News, LLC & Ors (Rev1) [2021] EWCA Civ 1952 (21 December 2021), https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2021/1952.html

        [5] Sam Tobin, Landmark jurisdiction ruling on data protection and libel claims, Law Gazette, December 2021, https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/landmark-jurisdiction-ruling-on-data-protection-and-libel-claims/51110

        [6] Ibid.

        [7] England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions, Soriano v Forensic News LLC & Ors (Rev1) [2021] EWCA/ Civ/2021/ 1952. (21 December 2021), https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2021/1952.html

        [8] Helsinki Commission, Helsinki Committee session on ‘Countering Oligarchs, Enablers, and Lawfare’, YouTube, April 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0YPcXB1W8I

        [9] Ibid.

        Topics
        Civil Society
        Freedom of Expression
        Investigative journalism
        Media and Online Freedom
        SLAPPs
        Regions
        Europe
        United Kingdom
        United States and Canada
        United States
        Footnotes
          Related Articles

          Op-ed | After the Locals: How Reform and the Greens Could Reshape Foreign Policy

          12/05/26
          Article by Foreign Policy Centre

          Op-ed | International Aid as a Line of Defence: What Happens to Human Security Without Soft Power?

          24/04/26
          Article by Anna Chernova

          Inside the No Kings Movement: A Conversation about Protest in Today’s America

          13/04/26
          Article by Dr Andrew Gawthorpe

          Realtid, a Swedish business publication, its editor and two investigative journalists

          Article by Foreign Policy Centre

          Realtid, a Swedish business publication, its editor and two investigative journalists

          “We started to do a really basic story, and this is what many people ask, when they look into our case and say ‘Oh, why are you being sued?’ and we kind of ask ourselves the same question… It’s a fairly basic due diligence story. We thought it was a good story, in the public interest… but nothing special really. But then we started to approach the company and ask questions. Quite soon, instead of returning with answers from a PR agency, we got these law firm letters saying we should not proceed with publication”.[1]

          – Per Agerman, November 2021

           

          STATUS: Concluded – The case was filed in November 2020, with a jurisdictional hearing in March 2021, the judgment for which was handed down in May 2022. A follow up hearing was anticipated in spring 2023, but the case was settled out of court in January 2023.

           

           

          Realtid, a Swedish business publication, its editor and two of its journalists were subject to legal action in London for their investigations into the business affairs of the Monaco-based Swedish businessman, Svante Kumlin. Realtid had been investigating Kumlin’s group of companies, Eco Energy World (EEW), ahead of an impending stock market launch in Norway. Although Realtid’s public interest investigation was published in Swedish for a Swedish readership, the case was nevertheless filed in the UK in November 2020.

           

          Swedish freedom of expression campaigners have pointed out that despite the negligibility of Realtid’s readership outside of Sweden, Kumlin chose to pursue claims in foreign jurisdictions but not in Sweden itself. Under Swedish law it is not possible to sue journalists independently of their publication. Two of the journalists, Per Agerman and Annelie Östlund, and the editor-in-chief, Camilla Jonsson, are also being sued personally.[2] Kumlin’s London-based solicitors, TLT, also warned the journalists in the early communication of the potential for criminal defamation proceedings to be pursued in Monaco in what has been seen as exceptionally heavy-handed effort to stop their reporting.

           

          The justification put forward for the libel claim, estimated to be worth more than £13 million, to be heard in the UK is that Kumlin resides in the UK part-time, while his company EEW Energy, listed as a second plaintiff, is registered in London (since 2019). A hearing to decide the jurisdiction admissibility was held on 24th and 25th March 2021, presided over by Justice Julian Knowles. On 11th May 2022, 15 months after the jurisdiction hearing took place, Justice Knowles ruled that the courts of England and Wales do not have jurisdiction over ten of the 13 defamation claims.[3] EEW was precluded from bringing its claim over five different articles on the basis that it did not show that it suffered serious financial loss stemming from Realtid’s publications, is proceeding with the case as an individual on only three of the original eight articles he sued over, but these actions have been restricted to claiming for any harm he suffered in England and Wales. In his judgment Mr Justice Knowles concluded that Kumlin “has failed to displace the general position that his centre of interests is Monaco, where he is habitually resident.”[4]

           

          English courts have appeared to allow libel cases to proceed so long as a foreign claimant can show a reputation in the UK, for example owning a home, business dealing, children in the school in this jurisdiction, or some other personal or business interest will suffice. The bar to meet the criteria to bring a case therefore seems to have become problematically low, not taking into account those with ample funds who cannot only easily set up businesses to purchase businesses in the UK, but also effectively buy residency and eventually citizenship via investment visas.[5] The UK is also home to companies ready to facilitate these services for those rich enough to afford it.[6]

           

          It is worth noting that at the time that case was filed at the High Court against Realtid and its journalists, the UK was still a member of the EU and part to the Lugano Convention, which meant that previously it was more straightforward to bring cases against defendants domiciled in states party to the convention.[7] When the Brexit transition period ended on 31st December 2020, the UK also was no longer subject to the Lugano Convention and as of yet its request to rejoin has not been granted by the EU. This means that moving forward English courts will have to rule on the appropriateness of EU-based claimants bringing action in the UK. This would place a great deal of importance on English Courts to ensure that defamation cases heard in England are there for a legitimate reason and not for the plaintiff to try to take advantage of benefits of the jurisdiction, namely substantial damages and high costs for defendants.[8]

           

          In January 2023, Realtid announced that a settlement had been reached, with Mr Kumlin paying further money towards Realtid’s costs, and the publication publishing an apology alongside the 3 remaining articles that were under claim. Its states: “After the publication of this and other articles about Mr Kumlin, and following the resolution of legal action, Realtid wishes to make clear that the article is not intended to suggest that Mr Kumlin, whether directly or through any of the companies mentioned, has engaged in any wrongful conduct and we are happy to apologise to Mr Kumlin for any personal distress caused to him by our reporting. We are pleased to be able to resolve Mr Kumlin’s complaint by this clarification and apology and save as clarified in this statement concerning Mr Kumlin and his activities, we stand by our reporting of this and related articles and have not made any amendments to their content.”[9]

           

          The result of this settlement means that all of the articles remain online with no changes apart from the addition of the apology. The investigative journalists Agerman and Östlund, in comments made to FPC in January 2023, stated that they remain free now to do more research, publish more articles and to speak about their experiences during the case. They have expressed that a settlement had not been their first choice, considering that so many things had gone their way and with the huge support and backing they received from organisations and individuals. However, they also noted, that had it not been for the support of British NGOs, they would have been forced – two years ago – to remove articles that they still see no reason to amend. They would not have had a chance to defend their investigation. This is a chance that is unfortunately not available to every defendant, and even they cannot reclaim the full financial cost nor the emotional or professional impact the case has had on the last two years of their life. As they themselves have aptly noted, press freedom should not be a question of money.

           

          In November 2022, Annelie Östlund spoke about the case and the impact it had  at the UK Anti-SLAPP Conference, organised by FPC and our partners the Justice for Journalists Foundation and the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute.

           

           

          The full event is available to watch here.

           

          This case is covered in the London Calling report on pages: 25-26, 43, 86 & 90.

           

          [1] Per Agerman, Speaking at the first UK Anti-SLAPP Conference, November 2021, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh2V02KRPTU&ab_channel=ForeignPolicyCentre

          [2] Index on Censorship, SLAPP lawsuit against Swedish magazine Realtid filed in London, December 2020, https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2020/12/slapp-lawsuit-against-swedish-magazine-realtid-filed-in-london/

          [3] Bailii, England and Wales High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) Decisions, Kumlin & Anor v Jonsson & Ors [2022] EWHC 1095 (QB), May 2022, https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2022/1095.html&query=(title:(+kumlin+))

          [4] Bailii, England and Wales High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) Decisions, Kumlin & Anor v Jonsson & Ors [2022] EWHC 1095 (QB), May 2022, https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2022/1095.html&query=(title:(+kumlin+))

          [5] Susan Coughtrie, The UK as a Key Nexus for protecting media freedom and preventing corruption globally, FPC, December 2020, https://fpc.org.uk/the-uk-as-a-key-nexus-for-protecting-media-freedom-and-preventing-corruption-globally/

          [6] Transparency International UK, At your Service, October 2019, https://www.transparency.org.uk/publications/at-your-service

          [7] “The Lugano Convention 2007 is an international treaty negotiated by the EU on behalf of its member states (and by Denmark separately because it has an opt-out) with Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. It attempts to clarify which national courts have jurisdiction in cross-border civil and commercial disputes and ensure that judgments taken in such disputes can be enforced across borders. The UK has applied to accede to the convention as an independent member now that it has left the EU. This would require the agreement of all signatories, but the EU has recommended that member states to say no to the UK’s accession.” -– See: UK in a Changing Europe, What is the Lugano Convention?, May 2021, https://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-facts/what-is-the-lugano-convention/

          [8] Nik Williams, Laurens Hueting and Paulina Milewska, the increasing rise, and impact of SLAPPs, strategic lawsuit against public participation, FPC, December 2020 https://fpc.org.uk/the-increasing-rise-and-impact-of-slapps-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation/

          [9] Realtid, Realtid och Kumlin har förlikats, January 2023,  https://www.realtid.se/realtid-och-kumlin-har-forlikats/

          Topics
          Civil Society
          Freedom of Expression
          Investigative journalism
          Media and Online Freedom
          SLAPPs
          Regions
          Europe
          Scandinavia
          United Kingdom
          Footnotes
            Related Articles

            Op-ed | After the Locals: How Reform and the Greens Could Reshape Foreign Policy

            12/05/26
            Article by Foreign Policy Centre

            Op-ed | International Aid as a Line of Defence: What Happens to Human Security Without Soft Power?

            24/04/26
            Article by Anna Chernova

            Inside the No Kings Movement: A Conversation about Protest in Today’s America

            13/04/26
            Article by Dr Andrew Gawthorpe

            Paul Radu, co–founder of the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP)

            Article by Foreign Policy Centre

            Paul Radu, co–founder of the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP)

            “So, how does a Romanian reporter —or, for that matter, any foreign journalist— get sued in the United Kingdom by an Azerbaijani politician for an article about corruption taking place hundreds of miles away?”[1]

            – Paul Radu, February 2020

             

            STATUS: Concluded – Case filed in 2018 and later withdrawn by the claimant in January 2020, reaching a settlement the eve of the trial.

             

             

            Paul Radu, investigative journalist and co-founder of OCCRP, was pursued through the London libel courts between 2018-2020 by Javanshir Feyziyev, a sitting Azerbaijani MP and businessman named in the investigation The Azerbaijani Laundromat.

             

            The Azerbaijani Laundromat investigation, published by OCCRP in September 2017, revealed a “complex money-laundering operation and slush fund that handled $2.9 billion over a two-year period through four shell companies registered in the UK.”[2] OCCRP reported that between 2012-14 members of Azerbaijan’s political elite used these funds to “pay off European politicians, buy luxury goods, launder money, and otherwise benefit themselves.”[3] This was happening at a time of severe crackdown within Azerbaijan itself, where independent media and wider civil society continues to be subject to tight restrictions.

             

            Despite Radu being a Romanian citizen and OCCRP being registered as an outlet in the US, Feyziyev was able to pursue Radu in UK courts. The plaintiff, despite being a sitting MP in Azerbaijan, appeared to have been able to establish a standing because he has property in the UK and has family members who live here full time. As Radu has himself pointed out: “London is a major real-estate hub that attracts the wealthy and powerful from all over the world — including many people of interest to those reporting on corruption… and it’s not hard to demonstrate a few British IP addresses accessed the investigative materials.”[4]

             

            Part of the reason the UK remains an attractive jurisdiction is that it is seen as easier to win libel cases in than other parts of the world. This is largely because the ‘burden of proof’ in a UK libel case is on the defendant – i.e. it is not up to the plaintiff to prove that the statement in question is false, rather the defendant must prove that the statement is true – which is often a far harder task than it might at first appear.[5] Investigative journalists are usually in the business of presenting facts, rather than drawing conclusions as to what they might mean. However, as Radu notes “[I]n British courts, a judge determines what your carefully crafted wording means to them as a legal matter. They may decide the ‘legal meaning’ was that someone was the new godfather and had taken over the local crime group. Now you have to prove that judge’s legal meaning in court with real proof, even though you never said it, and maybe never meant it.”[6]

             

            During the two years of trial proceedings, OCCRP journalists continued their investigation, collecting new information and strengthening their story. Due to disclosure rules, they were required to share this information with their opponent, who ultimately decided to settle on the eve of the trial in London. Feyziyev made a settlement in terms favourable to OCCRP, which included the original reporting staying online. However, while defending the case the media outlet had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, as well as significant time, effort and stress diverting them from other investigations. As Radu himself has put it: “Even if you win, you lose.”

             

            In January 2020, the libel case against Radu, was dropped on the eve of the trial opening at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.[7] The agreed settlement meant the articles that had sparked the defamation claim against him stayed on OCCRP’s website albeit with a qualifying statement that the claimant “categorically denies involvement in money laundering or any unlawful activity.”[8] During the two years it took the case to reach the trial stage, OCCRP journalists continued their investigation, collecting new information and strengthening their story, which, due to disclosure rules, they were required to share with their opponent who ultimately decided to withdraw.[9]

             

            OCCRP’s original investigation, together with information that had been sealed in the Javanshir Feyziyev settlement, were later utilised in a National Crime Agency (NCA) investigation into £15 million of allegedly corruption funds held by the UK based wife, son and nephew of Feyziyev.[10] In a civil proceeding, held in November 2021, a lawyer for the NCA presented a detailed analysis to bolster the agency’s argument that the money had flowed through the Azerbaijani Laundromat. In January 2022, a UK court approved the NCA’s seizure of £5.6m from members of Feyziyev’s family.[11] In July 2021, the NCA had also seized £4 million from an Azerbaijani couple, Izzat Khanim and Suleyman Javadov, after they accepted that the money came into the UK unlawfully via the Azerbaijani laundromat.[12]

             

            In November 2022, Paul Radu spoke at an evening event Azerbaijan; SLAPPS, media freedom and the prevention of ‘open justice’ held as part of the UK Anti-SLAPP Conference, organised by FPC and our partners the Justice for Journalists Foundation and the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute. The event was chaired by FPC’s Director, Susan Coughtrie, alongside panellists: Khadija Ismayilova (an independent investigative journalist from Azerbaijan) Dr Susan Hawley (Executive Director at Spotlight on Corruption) and Martin Bentham (Home Affairs Editor at The Evening Standard).

             

             

            The full event is available to watch here.

             

            This case is covered in the London Calling report on pages: 20, 23-26, 34, 49, 60, 62, 66, 70-71, 76 & 90.

             

            [1] Paul Radu, How to Successfully Defend Yourself in Her Majesty’s Libel Courts, GIJN, February 2020, https://gijn.org/2020/02/26/how-to-successfully-defend-yourself-in-her-majestys-libel-courts/

            [2] OCCRP, The Azerbaijani Laundromat, September 2017, https://www.occrp.org/en/azerbaijanilaundromat/

            [3] Ibid.

            [4] Paul Radu, How to Successfully Defend Yourself in Her Majesty’s Libel Courts, GIJN, February 2020, https://gijn.org/2020/02/26/how-tosuccessfully-defend-yourself-in-her-majestys-libel-courts/

            [5] David Carnes, Libel Law: past, present and future, All About Law, December 2019, https://www.allaboutlaw.co.uk/commercial-awareness/legal-spotlight/libel-law-past-present-and-future-

            [6] Susan Coughtrie, The Uk as a key nexus for protecting media freedom and preventing corruption globally, FPC, December 2020, https://fpc.org.uk/the-uk-as-a-key-nexus-for-protecting-media-freedom-and-preventing-corruption-globally/

            [7] Jonathan Price, Jennifer Robinson & Claire Overman, Azerbaijan MP discontinues defamation case against investigative journalist Paul Radu, Doughty Street Chambers, January 2020, https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/azerbaijan-mp-discontinues-defamation-case-againstinvestigative-journalist-paul-radu

            [8] OCCRP, Azerbaijani Laundromat – Agreed Statement, January 2020, https://www.occrp.org/en/azerbaijanilaundromat/the-agreed-statement

            [9] Paul Radu, How to Successfully Defend Yourself in Her Majesty’s Libel Courts, GIJN, February 2020, https://gijn.org/2020/02/26/how-tosuccessfully-defend-yourself-in-her-majestys-libel-courts/

            [10] Miranda Patrucic and Ilya Lozovsky, UK Aims to Seize £15 Million From Family of Azeri Politician, OCCRP, November 2021, https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/15402-uk-aims-to-seize-15-million-from-family-of-azeri-politician

            [11] Steve Swann and Dominic Casciani, Court approves £5.6m seizure over money laundering, BBC News, January 2022, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60203664

            [12] Martin Bentham, ‘Laundromat’ couple hand over £4m after Evening Standard win, Evening Standard, July 2021, https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/laundromat-couple-izzat-khanim-javadova-suleyman-javadov-4m-pounds-evening-standard-winb944136.html

            Topics
            Civil Society
            Freedom of Expression
            Investigative journalism
            Media and Online Freedom
            SLAPPs
            Regions
            Former Soviet Union
            Azerbaijan
            South Caucasus
            Europe
            United Kingdom
            Footnotes
              Related Articles

              Op-ed | After the Locals: How Reform and the Greens Could Reshape Foreign Policy

              12/05/26
              Article by Foreign Policy Centre

              Op-ed | International Aid as a Line of Defence: What Happens to Human Security Without Soft Power?

              24/04/26
              Article by Anna Chernova

              Inside the No Kings Movement: A Conversation about Protest in Today’s America

              13/04/26
              Article by Dr Andrew Gawthorpe

              Clare Rewcastle Brown, Investigative journalist and founder of The Sarawak Report

              Article by Foreign Policy Centre

              Clare Rewcastle Brown, Investigative journalist and founder of The Sarawak Report

              “Those wishing to pursue legal action against me in 2017 were advised, according to someone involved in the conversations, that for an outlay of no more than £200,000 I could be forced to issue the sort of retraction that could be spun into a total discrediting of myself and my wider reporting on corruption in Malaysia.”[1]

              – Clare Rewcastle Brown, June 2021

               

              STATUS: Concluded – Libel case filed in London in 2017, settled in Rewcastle Brown’s favour 2019. Rewcastle Brown continues to receive legal challenges in the UK and Malaysia related to her reporting on the 1MDB scandal.

               

               

              Clare Rewcastle Brown, a UK journalist, has been subject to significant legal challenges, while investigating one of the world’s largest financial corruption scandals in Malaysia, known as 1MDB.[2] From 2017-19, Rewcastle Brown was pursued through the London libel courts by the President of Malaysia’s PAS Islamic Party, Abdul Hadi Awang, before the case was withdrawn and a settlement was made in her favour prior to coming to trial.

               

              Hadi Awang was represented by lawyers at the London-based law firm Carter-Ruck, who  according to Rewcastle Brown: “constructed an argument that [she] had implied without saying it that the money had gone directly to the personal use of the actual President of the PAS, who was not named in the article and had only been referred to once before on my platform by a separate writer some months previously.[3] Rewcastle Brown had been subject to several legal threats prior to this, but noted in this case: “Those wishing to pursue legal action against me in 2017 were advised, according to someone involved in the conversations, that for an outlay of no more than £200,000 I could be forced to issue the sort of retraction that could be spun into a total discrediting of myself and my wider reporting on corruption in Malaysia.[4]

               

              By the time the case settled in 2019, the fallout from 1MDB had resulted in bringing down the previous Malaysian government, as well as the arrest (and later conviction) of the former Malaysian Prime Minister, Najib Razak. The believed mastermind of the scandal, businessman Jho Low, is currently on the run from justice in Malaysia, Singapore and the US. Writing about the case in 2020 for FPC, Clare Rewcastle Brown noted that “the PAS President justified his climb-down to the local media acknowledging his lawsuit had been politically motivated from the start and that since it had now served his party’s purpose in the elections he had decided to withdraw. What more damning indictment could there be of a self-admitted SLAPP suit?”[5] Rewcastle Brown has also been subject to legal cases in Malaysia, which led to a warrant being issued for her arrest in September 2021.

               

              Rewcastle Brown has continued to receive well over a dozen legal threats from London law firms representing Malaysian clients and clients linked to 1MDB, such as Al Wazzan who sent Recastle Brown legal threats through the London law firm Taylor Wessing (TW) in 2021. Al Wazzan is an investment advisor, on bail in Kuwait accused of brokering a deal believed to be linked to 1MDB.[6] Rewcastle Brown believes that Al Wazzan’s objective may have been to have any reference to him or his involvement in the 1MDB scandal removed entirely from the English language media, even though his name is universally known and associated with the scandal in Kuwait as a result of Arabic-language media coverage. Rewcastle Brown received three legal letters from Taylor Wessing on behalf of Al Wazzan in relation to five articles she published on her site Sarawak Report. The letters requested the removal of all reference and information, with Taylor Wessing also urging her to “never publish the allegations, or any similar allegations, or any of our client’s private and confidential information again in the future”.[7] They stated that the investigation into Al Wazzan and his release on bail is a “private matter” and insisted that Al Wazzan would still be able to take legal action in the English courts, even though he is currently not permitted to leave Kuwait under his bail conditions. In the letters, the lawyers also said that English language publications (third parties) had already removed reference to Al Wazzan in their coverage in response to similar threats.

               

              After Index on Censorship and ARTICLE 19 submitted a Council of Europe alert on these legal threats, no further communication was received from TW and once the writ had expired, Rewcastle Brown decided to write an article about this experience, which indicated that public exposure of these tactics does have a positive impact to push back against SLAPPs.[8]

               

              Rewcastle Brown has also described in detail the multitude of tactics adopted by UK law firms to attempt to get her to retract her published investigations; “Indeed, from the moment it was launched the [2017] case was used as a relentless propaganda tool against me…leaking privileged information and alleging that judgements had already been arrived at against me.”[9] She has described the psychological toll of being “under surveillance, been computer hacked, stalked, intimidated, sued and made the subject of numerous attempts at entrapment designs to compromise my reputation for integrity” as heavy. Unfortunately, accompanying forms of harassment, alongside legal threats, are a hallmark of SLAPPs cases.[10]

               

              In November 2022, Clare Rewcastle Brown spoke on the panel “SLAPPs in today’s independent investigative media landscape” held as part of the UK Anti-SLAPP Conference, organised by FPC and our partners the Justice for Journalists Foundation and the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute.

               

               

              The full event is available to watch here.

               

              These case are covered in the London Calling report on pages: 23-24, 34, 40, 44-45, 60-61, 64-65, & 90.

               

              [1] Clare Rewcastle Brown, FPC, Unsafe for Scrutiny: A scandal of corruption and censorship: Uncovering the 1MDB case in Malaysia, December 2020, https://fpc.org.uk/a-scandal-of-corruption-and-censorship-uncovering-the-1mdb-case-in-malaysia/

              [2] Ibid.

              [3] Ibid.

              [4] Ibid.

              [5] Ibid.

              [6] Journalist Clare Rewcastle Brown Subject to Legal Harassment from London Law Firm on behalf of Kuwaiti Investment Advisor, CoE’s Safety of Journalists Platform, June 2021, https://go.coe.int/32Ow3

              [7] Ibid.

              [8] The Sarawak Report: How Foreign Litigants Abuse UK Law Firms To ‘Launder’ Reputations, October 2021, https://www.sarawakreport.org/2021/10/how-foreign-litigants-abuse-uk-lawfirms-to-launder-reputations/

              [9] Clare Rewcastle Brown, FPC, Unsafe for Scrutiny: A scandal of corruption and censorship: Uncovering the 1MDB case in Malaysia, December 2020, https://fpc.org.uk/a-scandal-of-corruption-and-censorship-uncovering-the-1mdb-case-in-malaysia/

              [10] Ibid.

              Topics
              Civil Society
              Freedom of Expression
              Investigative journalism
              Media and Online Freedom
              SLAPPs
              Regions
              Asia
              Malaysia
              Europe
              United Kingdom
              Footnotes
                Related Articles

                Op-ed | After the Locals: How Reform and the Greens Could Reshape Foreign Policy

                12/05/26
                Article by Foreign Policy Centre

                Op-ed | International Aid as a Line of Defence: What Happens to Human Security Without Soft Power?

                24/04/26
                Article by Anna Chernova

                Inside the No Kings Movement: A Conversation about Protest in Today’s America

                13/04/26
                Article by Dr Andrew Gawthorpe

                Ukraine – A war’s different seasons

                Article by Andra-Lucia Martinescu with contributions from Cătălina Moisescu and Antonina Naidis

                December 12, 2022

                Ukraine – A war’s different seasons

                We commenced our research at the beginning of June, when virtually no news was transpiring from the occupied southern regions. By the time this analysis had been peer-reviewed and published, Kherson was liberated, a momentous military achievement for Ukraine. But before the Russian retreat from the city and the west bank of the Dnieper River, the campaign of terror turned to sustained attacks on critical infrastructures and the power grids, plunging the entire country (literally) into darkness. The insidiousness of this tactical approach becomes obvious as winter settles in, a war that seems to mold human tragedy into the passing of seasons: from food insecurity to lack of warmth, water, and electricity, and further displacement. In the central Liberty Square of Kherson locals gathered in a rare display of joy after eight and a half months of isolation. Makeshift memorials for the fallen and ‘the disappeared’ emerged across the city and villages, a landscape of hope and remembrance, amid the destruction and destitution left behind by occupation. In their withdrawal, Russian forces mined swathes of territory turning the city and region into a minefield of over 300,000sq km, which may take years to clear.[1] As demining efforts continue, the legacy of war in other parts of the world, former Yugoslavia for instance, may prove somewhat instructive. In Kosovo, Ukrainian teams receive training from local experts in defusing ordnance and clearing mines – a different war, similar mines.

                 

                In Odesa, the volunteers whom I interviewed also continue their relentless fight. Much like the country itself, where reconstruction efforts go side by side with the battles for liberation, Ukraine’s civil society strives for a reformed political future, less entrenched in the remnants of a corrupt post-Soviet transition, and more representative of their aspirations. This paper aims to depict the different facets of war: the whole-of-society approach to resilience, the vulnerable food chains in a geographical horn of plenty, as well as the human and environmental consequences of occupation.

                 

                The full paper can be accessed here.

                 

                Disclaimer: The views expressed in this piece are those of the individual author and do not reflect the views of The Foreign Policy Centre.

                 

                Biographies of contributors:

                 

                Andra-Lucia is a Research Fellow with Foreign Policy Centre and Co-founder of The Diaspora Initiative. Andra is pursuing a part-time doctorate at University of Cambridge focusing on the history of geopolitics in the Black Sea area. Together with Catalina and Antonina they coordinate humanitarian affairs for Frontline.Live on Ukraine, an award-winning platform repurposed for humanitarian efforts. This set of analyses is based on extensive fieldwork and research on the ground, in Ukraine and neighbouring countries.

                 

                Cătălina Moisescu pursues doctoral studies at University of Fribourg focusing on separatism in the region with a focus on Transnistria. She also co-founded, The Diaspora Initiative, a migration research network. Catalina also carried out extensive fieldwork in the region, in the Republic of Moldova, Transnistria and Ukraine.

                 

                Antonina Naidis is Humanitarian coordinator for South Ukraine affiliated amongst others with Frontline.Live for Ukraine. She is a decorated civilian volunteer for the Ukrainian Army and Navy and awarded the highest presidential honours. Antonina kindly offered to contact other volunteers and assisted with translation from Ukrainian. She has also been interviewed for this analysis.

                 

                [1] Lorenzo Tondo and Isabel Koshiw, The Russians mined everything: why making Kherson safe could take years, The Guardian, November 2022,www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/16/the-russians-mined-everything-why-making-kherson-safe-could-take-years

                Topics
                Conflict Resolution and Security
                Energy, Environment and Resources
                Ukraine Conflict
                Regions
                Europe
                Former Soviet Union
                Ukraine
                Footnotes
                  Related Articles

                  Op-ed | After the Locals: How Reform and the Greens Could Reshape Foreign Policy

                  12/05/26
                  Article by Foreign Policy Centre

                  Op-ed | International Aid as a Line of Defence: What Happens to Human Security Without Soft Power?

                  24/04/26
                  Article by Anna Chernova

                  Op-ed | World Health Day: Reimagining UK Leadership in Global Health

                  07/04/26
                  Article by Foreign Policy Centre

                  What next for Global Britain under a Truss premiership?

                  Article by Denisa Delic

                  September 29, 2022

                  What next for Global Britain under a Truss premiership?

                  With a change at the top of British politics, will the UK’s foreign policy be a continuation of the Johnson era or are we turning the page towards a new chapter in the UK’s role in the world?

                   

                  The UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres’ remarks at the opening of the 77th session of the UN General Assembly paint a bleak picture: “Geostrategic divides are the widest they have been since at least the Cold War” and they are “paralyzing the global response to the dramatic challenges we face.”[1] This was the backdrop that the new PM went to deliver her first foreign policy speech at UNGA last week.

                   

                  Since entering the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) last year in September, as Foreign Secretary Liz Truss established a key theme in her foreign policy, namely the creation of the ‘network of liberty.’[2] The network’s fundamental premise was based on the UK and other ‘freedom loving nations’ trading with one another, building security links and supporting democratic values, which in turn would make them ‘safer and freer.’

                   

                  Whilst this defining principle remains a key theme in Prime Minister Truss’ policy toolbox, her speech at UNGA has revealed a clear agenda for what the new PM’s vision for British foreign policy will look like in an increasingly volatile geopolitical era. And this matters not only because as PM she will set the direction of all of Britain’s policies, but because those close to her envisage Truss taking a bigger role on the world stage than Johnson did, with the exception being Ukraine.[3] In fact, senior Conservatives have suggested in private that the appointment of James Cleverly as Foreign Secretary was “designed so that Liz can remains foreign secretary while based in No.10”, ultimately reserving decision-making for herself.[4]

                   

                  The PM’s speech at UNGA was framed as the UK working together with allies and partners to define this new era as one of ‘hope and progress’, against the backdrop of a world where the values underpinning the UN are fracturing and authoritarianism is on the rise.[5] The solutions set out to address the new geopolitical environment that is undermining stability and security across the globe, echoed Truss’ previous speeches on the need to build economic strength and resilience as a way of winning this new era of strategic competition. But it also had perhaps a more pragmatic view on how to achieve this, and one that diverges from some of the statements and actions taken by Liz Truss before she was elected as the new leader of both the Conservative Party and the country. In particular, there are three key themes worth noting which clearly set the path for the new PM’s vision for Britain’s foreign policy.

                   

                  The first theme is the importance of partnerships and alliances. In her speech at UNGA, the PM used the response to Ukraine as an example to demonstrate that collective decisive action to respond to the aggression by Russia was vital. Her speech was peppered with the need to cooperate with like-minded allies and other partners, and her bilateral meetings with the US, France, EU, Japan and Turkey are a testament of the range and depth of relationships the UK will seek, and indeed need, to strengthen in this new era. Neither was it distracted by political sloganeering aimed at a domestic audience, or Brexit woes as we saw with the former PM Boris Johnson at last year’s G7.[6] The new PM stated that the UK will be a “dynamic, reliable and trustworthy partner”, but this will require action. For example, taking steps towards resolving the ongoing dispute with the European Union over Brexit, in particular avoiding threats to abandon sections of the Northern Ireland Protocol, would show the PM is serious about this.[7] But as President Macron said in New York after his meeting with Truss, “I believe in proofs and results.”

                   

                  Whilst the speech did not explicitly mention the EU, the door was not entirely shut on President Macron’s proposal of Britain joining his idea of the ‘European Political Community’, intended to bolster regional co-operation in the face of Russian aggression on the continent.[8] In a few weeks’ time, we will find out if the UK plans to attend the summit in Prague next month. It would be a positive sign for repairing the strained relations between Britain and the EU, as well as Paris, since Brexit. And as Chatham House’s new director recently said, if the Government gets the relationship with Europe wrong, “it will not find the world rich in good substitutes.”[9]

                   

                  The second theme closes in on the gap between domestic and foreign policy. The PM has linked her foreign policy vision to both action abroad and home, arguing ‘our commitment to hope and progress must begin at home – in the lives of each and every citizen we serve.”[10] There has long been discussion in foreign policy circles to connect the domestic to the global, but it’s an idea that has picked up pace and support since the invasion of Ukraine as a way of ‘dictator-proofing’ the economy.[11]

                   

                  Avoiding authoritarian states to weaponise demand for goods and reducing interference in societies from other states requires a closer link between domestic and foreign policy. It also brings an additional benefit of bringing foreign policy debates close to the public, as they are often seen as not being vote winners in elections. It can demonstrate the importance of these policies and their impact on everyday lives, which will increase attention and better public scrutiny.

                   

                  Bodies like the National Security Council (NSC), which looks like it will be replaced with the newly established Foreign Policy and Security Council, will play a crucial role in these matters, and provide a space for the Government to both react to developments and to proactively strategise and plan ahead to respond to emerging trends and developments.[12] Under Johnson, the lack of NSC meetings was rightly criticised, and with the new PM closing the gap on domestic and foreign policy, this will be an opportunity to revive those important discussions.[13]

                   

                  The final theme is the hawkish foreign policy posture and positioning, and as a consequence, the diminishing focus on Britain’s soft power assets. The PM committed to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030, and has been a vocal advocate of providing military support to Ukraine. The logic goes as geopolitics continues to destabilise and threaten pockets of conflict erupting across the globe, Britain needs to ensure its defence and security policies are fit for purpose and that it can play a useful partnership role in its defence alliances, such as NATO.

                   

                  The PM’s announcement to review the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy published last year to reflect the threats posed by Russia and China is important.[14] It provides an opportunity to also reflect on the importance of ensuring soft power assets such as diplomacy and development are not de-prioritised. At a time of disinformation and shuttle diplomacy across Africa, the Middle East and other parts of the globe not aligned to either the West or Russia/China, the ability to reach audiences and influence is vital.

                   

                  UK aid helps save lives and transforms societies, decreasing instability and preventing conflict. It also helps strengthen bilateral relationships and cements global partnerships. The cut from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI, and the exclusion of the new Minister for Development to join the Foreign Policy Council where they will be discussing development issues, is concerning to Britain’s standing and impact on the world stage.[15] At the same time, the UK’s Foreign Office had a distinguished reputation, referred to as ‘Rolls Royce diplomacy’, but in recent years cuts to the Foreign Office budget has led to reducing staff and shutting down diplomatic posts limiting the UK’s geographic spread and reach.[16] And not investing in its language capabilities of diplomats such as Mandarin, has raised questions about whether the department is prepared for the shift in diplomatic approach to China.[17] Deprioritising soft power assets in favour of a hard-edged foreign policy at a time of great geopolitical rivalry and turmoil will present challenges to the new PM and her global ambitions.

                   

                  As the Government settles in and responds to domestic economic turmoil, it will need to chart a new course in an era of geopolitical volatility, where PM Truss and her Foreign Secretary will have to navigate a complex global environment. The UNGA speech is clear about what PM Truss wants for Global Britain 2.0, but the question remains whether it will be enough to rise to the geopolitical challenges of the day.

                   

                  Image by Number 10 under (CC).

                   

                  [1] UN, Secretary General’s Opening Remarks Press Conference the 77th Session of UN General Assembly, September 2022, https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2022-09-14/secretary-generals-opening-remarks-press-conference-the-77th-session-of-un-general-assembly

                  [2] FCDO and The Rt Hon Elizabeth Truss MP, Speech: Building the Network of Liberty: Foreign Secretary’s speech, Gov.uk, December 2021, https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/foreign-secretary-liz-truss-building-the-network-of-liberty

                  [3] Katy Balls, What foreign policy would look like under a PM Truss, The Spectator, August 2022, https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-foreign-policy-would-look-like-under-a-pm-truss

                  [4] Dan Sabbagh, James Cleverly: early Truss backer rises rapidly to foreign secretary, The Guardian, September 2022, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/06/james-cleverly-early-truss-backer-charts-rapid-rise-to-foreign-secretary

                  [5] Prime Minister’s Office, 10 Downing Street, FCDO and The Rt Hon Elizabeth Truss MP, Speech: Prime Minister Liz Truss’s speech to the UN General Assembly: 21 September 2022, Gov.uk, September 2022, https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/prime-minister-liz-trusss-speech-to-the-un-general-assembly-21-september-2022

                  [6] Jon Henley, ‘Serious problem’ if France and UK can’t tell if they’re friends or enemies, says Macron, The Guardian, August 2022, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/26/serious-problem-if-france-and-uk-cant-tell-if-they-are-friends-or-enemies-says-macron-liz-truss

                  [7] Jessica Elgot, Jennifer Rankin and Lisa O’Carroll, Liz Truss’s plan to revoke NI protocol ‘splits allies and risks trade war’, The Guardian, May 2022, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/11/liz-truss-warned-over-bill-to-scrap-parts-of-northern-ireland-protocol

                  [8] George Parker, Liz Truss explores joining Macron’s proposed European group, Financial Times, September 2022, https://www.ft.com/content/53793289-7633-44c2-8523-908a371b9389

                  [9] Bronwen Maddox, Europe should become the top priority for Liz Truss, Chatham House, September 2022, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2022/09/europe-should-become-top-priority-liz-truss

                  [10] Prime Minister’s Office, 10 Downing Street, FCDO and The Rt Hon Elizabeth Truss MP, Speech: Prime Minister Liz Truss’s speech to the UN General Assembly: 21 September 2022, Gov.uk, September 2022, https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/prime-minister-liz-trusss-speech-to-the-un-general-assembly-21-september-2022

                  [11] Sophia Gaston, Global Britain and Levelling Up are Natural Bedfellows, BFPG, March 2021, https://bfpg.co.uk/2021/03/global-britain-levelling-up-bedfellows/; Tom Tugendhat, Britain After Ukraine: A New Foreign Policy for an Age of Great-Power Competition, Foreign Affairs, September 2022, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-kingdom/tom-tugendhat-britain-after-ukraine?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=de80f248ff-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2022_09_02_03_19&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-de80f248ff-190447153

                  [13] Dan Sabbagh, UK national security council has not met since January, The Guardian, May 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/12/uk-national-security-council-has-not-met-since-january

                  [14] Cabinet Office, Policy Paper: Global Britain in a Competitive Age: the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy, Gov.uk, March 2021, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/global-britain-in-a-competitive-age-the-integrated-review-of-security-defence-development-and-foreign-policy

                  [16] Billy Kenber, Foreign Office to cut staff by 20% in four years, The Times, December 2021, https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/foreign-office-to-cut-staff-by-20-in-four-years-xzwcpwlzj

                  [17] George Greenwood, Lack of Mandarin speakers raises fears for future diplomacy, The Times, August 2022, https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fears-for-china-diplomacy-as-foreign-office-reveals-shortage-of-mandarin-speakers-bkvt0bcfm

                  Topics
                  Brexit
                  Conflict Resolution and Security
                  International Development
                  International Relations and Geopolitics
                  Regions
                  Europe
                  United Kingdom
                  Footnotes
                    Related Articles

                    Op-ed | After the Locals: How Reform and the Greens Could Reshape Foreign Policy

                    12/05/26
                    Article by Foreign Policy Centre

                    Op-ed | International Aid as a Line of Defence: What Happens to Human Security Without Soft Power?

                    24/04/26
                    Article by Anna Chernova

                    Op-ed | World Health Day: Reimagining UK Leadership in Global Health

                    07/04/26
                    Article by Foreign Policy Centre

                    Statement from the Foreign Policy Centre on the passing of Her Majesty The Queen

                    Article by Foreign Policy Centre

                    September 9, 2022

                    Statement from the Foreign Policy Centre on the passing of Her Majesty The Queen

                    The staff and board of the Foreign Policy Centre would like place on record our deep sadness on the tragic passing of Her Majesty The Queen.  Throughout her many decades of service to our Country she has been a beacon for many of the values we hold dear, respected and admired around the world. Her deep commitment to the Commonwealth and her work with generations of world leaders made her the greatest ambassador around the world that the United Kingdom could have wished for. Our thoughts are with the Royal Family at this difficult time.

                    Topics
                    Footnotes
                      Related Articles

                       Join our mailing list 

                      Keep informed about events, articles & latest publications from Foreign Policy Centre

                      JOIN