The establishment fights back: SLAPPs, injunctions, intimidation, and detention

Other articles on this site have considered the relationship between the public and the media, the trust that underpins that relationship, and individual choices around media consumption. However, at a recent meeting of the London Freelance Branch of the National Union of Journalists, it became clear to me that trust in journalism flows both ways. What happens when a journalist is considered a threat by the establishment?

At the meeting, photographer and journalist Klaus Thymann related his experience at the hands of Ugandan security forces, who arrested and detained him for several days on spurious espionage charges. The experience of being detained alone in a foreign country had psychological and financial consequences that continue to affect him. The National Union of Journalists has published a report on his detention, which readers may wish to review. Thymann is not alone in experiencing direct consequences as a result of his reporting. Journalists also face pressure through less formal, if possibly even more intimidating, means. In my interview with Phil Redmond for this site, he describes how armed groups would seek him out and challenge his reporting [Interview with Phil, June 2026, 07:00]. However, intimidation does not only happen abroad. The National Union of Journalists has reported on the case of Richard Medhurst, a freelance journalist who, in 2024, was detained under the Terrorism Act 2000 upon his return to the UK. Medhurst was held for nearly 24 hours before being released, a detention condemned by both the National Union of Journalists and the International Federation of Journalists. The stated grounds for his detention? "[…] expressing an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation." While the case was passed to the Crown Prosecution Service, it was later dropped. But the threat of prosecution hung over Medhurst for years and, regardless of whether or not charges were eventually brought, the uncertainty and distress it caused illustrates how legal processes can have consequences that extend far beyond the courtroom, affecting finances, reputations, and livelihoods. It should be noted that Medhurst has always rejected the allegations against him, describing the suggestion that he was involved in terrorism as "really ridiculous".

Nevertheless, the fact remains that SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), injunctions, intimidation, and detention are all used, at home and abroad, to rein in journalists and constrain investigative reporting. Even where no prosecution follows, the possible financial and reputational damage may be enough to discourage reporters or publications from asking difficult questions. Whether this pressure comes from governments, corporations or other large institutions, these establishments have the power and resources to pursue legal action that lone journalists or small publications can find difficult to defend.

Of course, even the most liberal societies recognise limits on freedom of expression. No reasonable society would allow child sexual abuse, extreme sexual violence, or the promotion of racially or religiously aggravated public order offences, and these, along with many other forms of illegal content, are covered by the UK's Online Safety Act 2023. Equally, journalists have a responsibility to report accurately, ethically and in the public interest. But how do we distinguish between legitimate legal restraint and measures that make scrutiny of those in public office more costly or otherwise intimidate the journalists who undertake it?

Poll: The relationship between governments and the press has always required a balance: Governments have a responsibility to protect national security, public safety, and individual rights, while the media have a duty to scrutinise those in power. Where do you think the balance of journalistic freedom should lie?

Add your vote to the poll and let us know what you think.