Higgins: Clear abuse of the British legal system
The journalist at the centre of the row over the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) decision not to take action against the former solicitors of a Russian warlord has accused the regulator of shirking its responsibilities.
The comments from Eliot Higgins, the founder of investigative website Bellingcat, came alongside a letter from the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition to SRA chief executive Paul Philip, which said its decision not to take action left several questions unanswered.
Earlier this week, the SRA took the unusual step of setting out why it cleared Discreet Law, the now-defunct London practice which acted for Yevgeniy Prigozhin, leader of the Wagner Group.
Though dubbed a ‘textbook’ SLAPP – strategic lawsuit against public participation – the SRA did not call it one, saying this was not required under its rules.
Mr Philip said the SRA found “no evidence to suggest” that Discreet Law was, or should have been, aware both that the instructions it received from Mr Prigozhin – who sued Mr Higgins for tweets connecting him with the mercenary group – were false, and that he was a key player in the Wagner Group, which he vehemently denied at the time.
Mr Higgins responded: “The fact remains that to any reasonable person, an individual sanctioned by the UK, EU, and US government for their relationship with Wagner claiming social media posts making the same statement would damage their reputation and taking legal action against the individual sharing that information is a clear abuse of the British legal system.
“I have no confidence in a system that would allow such a thing to happen, especially when neither the government nor SRA seem to want to take responsibility for preventing something similar happening in the future.”
The Anti-SLAPP Coalition pointed out that leaked documents showed Discreet Law “was, at the very least, aware that the proceedings could constitute an abuse of process”.
It explained: “These documents showed, for example, that Discreet Law was instructed to monitor Higgins’ Twitter account in order to find a jurisdictional basis to sue him in the UK.
“It is difficult to reconcile such conduct with their obligation [as set out in Mr Philip’s letter] to ‘explore [their] client’s motives and intentions for pursuing a claim, and make sure that there is a proper basis for doing so’.
“Also relevant here is that Mr Higgins merely retweeted three articles written by others and, rather than engaging with those publications (or indeed Bellingcat, the organisation founded by Mr Higgins), Mr Prigozhin opted instead to pursue Mr Higgins personally.
“On this basis, it is difficult to reconcile the firm’s conduct with the SRA’s decision that it did not act improperly.”
The group challenged Mr Philip’s assertion that it was only after Discreet Law stopped acting that Mr Prigozhin’s role within the Wagner Group became clear – given he was already subject to sanctions from the UK, EU and USA, and there had been substantial press coverage about it.
The letter said it would help if the SRA did identify cases that were SLAPPs to help the profession better understand what they were.
It went on to outline the group’s central concern: “If the proceedings do not constitute a SLAPP, and if Discreet Law, in acting for an already sanctioned war criminal against a solitary journalist, for re-tweeting articles, is assessed by the SRA as neither facilitating an abuse of the legal system nor acting improperly, then other firms will rely on that fact in future to advance meritless and potentially deliberately malicious claims against the independent media and others who speak out in the public interest.”
In a statement, the four co-chairs of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition added: “The SRA’s work on SLAPPs has been an important step towards robust anti-SLAPP protections in the UK.
“However, its decision to discontinue Eliot’s complaint and the absence, until now, of any explanation has sowed further confusion and doubt in a manner that threatens to undermine public trust in the SRA and its work.
“While we disagree with its decision to discontinue Eliot’s complaint against Discreet Law, we agree with the SRA that regulation on its own is not enough to stamp out SLAPPs and that a universal anti-SLAPP Law is what everyone needs.”
I have posted on LinkedIn and X and written in my book Buying Silence why this decision by the SRA is utterly wrong and supine