IRELAND MUST INTRODUCE new legislation to protect journalists and human rights advocates from forms of judicial intimidation, known as strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), under a new EU directive.
SLAPPs are used by those in positions of power who want to silence and disturb key-elements of democracy, such as journalism and advocacy. By filing multiple lawsuits against critical voices, they waste time and resources.
The new directive, formally agreed by the European Parliament today, outlines the minimum requirements and safeguards that member states should introduce for protecting members of the media and rights advocates.
The safeguards suggested by the directive include that a right should be given to the defendant to request and receive an early dismissal if the case is unfounded, as well as the possibility to ask the claimant to pay the estimated costs of proceedings, including legal costs and damages.
It also outlines that data on SLAPP cases should be collected by member states and the judgments of the cases should be published to the public.
The directive was proposed to the European Union after Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia was assassinated with a car bomb in 2017. During her career, Caruana Galizia uncovered many corruption scandals connected to the Maltese government.
In 2021, Malta’s prime minister stood down from his position after protests erupted on the streets over the handling of the enquiries into the journalist’s death. Caruana Galizia’s killers were jailed for 40 years in 2022.
The directive, known as Daphne’s Law, has previously been welcomed by the National Union of Journalists of Ireland, which said it should push the Irish government to take relevant steps to introduce reforms to domestic defamation law.
Under the anti-SLAPP regulations, if a defendant requests an early dismissal, it will be up to the claimant to prove that there are grounds for proceedings to continue. Often defamation cases can be long, expensive and taxing on defendants and their livelihoods.
If it is proven that the claims are unfounded, courts may impose other penalties on claimants, such as ordering them to pay compensation for damages.
Ireland and other member states have been given two years to introduce new domestic laws which fit into these guidelines and provide the rights to the defendants and complainants.
The EU has also taken measures to avoid ‘forum shopping’ – where a claimant chooses a third-party country to file proceedings where they view their chances of success are highest.
The new directive takes steps at ensuring that third-country judgments (from countries outside of the European Union) will not be recognised if proceedings are also taken inside the EU.
Member states will also be required to provide free legal aid to potential victims of abusive lawsuits, provide access to information on procedural safeguards, remedies and financial and psychological support.
European governments must also ensure free legal aid is provided to defendants when cases are taken outside of their home state. Member states also have two years to implement these changes.
Parliamentary President Roberta Metsola said: “With today’s historic vote, Daphne’s Law is now a reality. We promised it. We worked for it. We delivered it.”
She added that she was proud of her parliamentary colleagues and the EU’s “leading role” on the anti-SLAPP Directive to protect journalists and activists from threats and harassment.
The European Parliament approved with 546 votes in favour, 47 against and 31 abstentions.
Cases of politicians taking legal action against media companies have hit headlines in recent years as TDs and other party representatives from across the political spectrum sought compensation over alleged defamatory claims.
The most recent of which was seen in November when defamation proceedings were issued by Sinn Féin TD Chris Andrews against the Irish Times and it’s journalist Harry McGee.
These proceedings were denounced by the Press Ombudsman, Government TDs and other members of the media.
Party leader Mary Lou McDonald defended the proceedings and rejected claims that her party were attempting to silence media and its reporting.
When asked if it was appropriate for a politician to sue an individual journalist, she said: “I think the objective of this should never be and can never be to personalise it to an individual.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say