What do you think?
Rate this book
Lawfare
How Russians, the Rich and the Government Try to Prevent Free Speech and How to Stop Them. ‘ESSENTIAL’ Amal Clooney
‘AUTHORITATIVE’ Sir Geoffrey Bindman KC
‘IMPORTANT ’ Baroness Helena Kennedy KC
‘COULD HARDLY BE MORE TIMELY’ Alan Rusbridger The British tradition of “free speech” is a myth. From the middle ages to the present, the law of defamation has worked to cover up misbehaviour by the rich and powerful, whose legal mercenaries intimidate investigative journalists. Now a new terror has been added through misguided judicial development of the laws of privacy, breach of confidence and data protection, to suppress the reporting of truths of public importance to tell. Drawing upon the author’s unparalleled experience of defending journalists and editors in English and Commonwealth courtrooms over the past half-century, the book describes the hidden world of lawfare, in which authors struggle against unfair rules that put them always on the defensive and against a costs burden that runs to millions. Law schools do not teach freedom of speech and judges in the Supreme Court do not understand it. This book identifies and advocates the reforms that will be necessary before Britain can truly boast that it is a land of free speech, rather than a place where free speech can come very expensive.
‘AUTHORITATIVE’ Sir Geoffrey Bindman KC
‘IMPORTANT ’ Baroness Helena Kennedy KC
‘COULD HARDLY BE MORE TIMELY’ Alan Rusbridger The British tradition of “free speech” is a myth. From the middle ages to the present, the law of defamation has worked to cover up misbehaviour by the rich and powerful, whose legal mercenaries intimidate investigative journalists. Now a new terror has been added through misguided judicial development of the laws of privacy, breach of confidence and data protection, to suppress the reporting of truths of public importance to tell. Drawing upon the author’s unparalleled experience of defending journalists and editors in English and Commonwealth courtrooms over the past half-century, the book describes the hidden world of lawfare, in which authors struggle against unfair rules that put them always on the defensive and against a costs burden that runs to millions. Law schools do not teach freedom of speech and judges in the Supreme Court do not understand it. This book identifies and advocates the reforms that will be necessary before Britain can truly boast that it is a land of free speech, rather than a place where free speech can come very expensive.
128 pages, Hardcover
Published September 5, 2023
5 people are currently reading
50 people want to read
About the author
Geoffrey Robertson
56 books84 followersGeoffrey Ronald Robertson QC (born 30 September 1946) is a human rights barrister, academic, author and broadcaster. He holds dual Australian and British citizenship.
Robertson is a founder and joint head of Doughty Street Chambers. He serves as a Master of the Bench at the Middle Temple, a recorder, and visiting professor at Queen Mary, University of London.
Robertson is a founder and joint head of Doughty Street Chambers. He serves as a Master of the Bench at the Middle Temple, a recorder, and visiting professor at Queen Mary, University of London.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
May 7, 2024
3.5 / 5 stars
In ‘Lawfare: How Russians, The Rich and the Government Try to Prevent Free Speech’, Geoffrey Robertson KC examines the variety of ways in which the aforementioned actors can utilise the British legal system in order to silence journalists and suppress information.
Throughout the book, Robertson provides detailed explanations of the ways in which the law is used to silence journalists through cases mainly revolving around defamation and privacy. For example, the burden of proof lies mainly on the defendant which suppresses many journalists and they – and their editors – self censor for fear of legal challenges which could bankrupt an organisation. This is evidenced in the claim that the Sunday Mirror suspected Jimmy Saville of being a child abuser back in 1994, and that the Sun had signed statements from victims in 2008. Despite these, the newspapers decided that they either could not fulfil the ‘burden of proof’ test or that victims would not stand cross-examination. This delayed the eventual revelation regarding Saville’s actions.
The book is littered with examples similar to this whereby Robertson provides an argument and has a wealth of examples to illustrate his point. Simply put, freedom of speech in the United Kingdom is extended mainly to the rich who can shoulder the costs arising from legal cases and often, flaunt this fact in order to force media to retract statements or stop publishing altogether.
In concluding the book, Robertson offers several potential remedies such as allowing cases to be televised, reversing the burden of proof, ending the ‘balancing act’, and the return of juries in such trials. He also questions why human rights have been extended to corporations and the reason why so many multinationals bring their libel cases to the United Kingdom.
Whilst this is a very short book, it has an enjoyable amount of detail without being bogged down by legalese. Unfortunately, despite its short size, there is also a lot of repetition throughout the book. Overall, it was an enjoyable read.
In ‘Lawfare: How Russians, The Rich and the Government Try to Prevent Free Speech’, Geoffrey Robertson KC examines the variety of ways in which the aforementioned actors can utilise the British legal system in order to silence journalists and suppress information.
Throughout the book, Robertson provides detailed explanations of the ways in which the law is used to silence journalists through cases mainly revolving around defamation and privacy. For example, the burden of proof lies mainly on the defendant which suppresses many journalists and they – and their editors – self censor for fear of legal challenges which could bankrupt an organisation. This is evidenced in the claim that the Sunday Mirror suspected Jimmy Saville of being a child abuser back in 1994, and that the Sun had signed statements from victims in 2008. Despite these, the newspapers decided that they either could not fulfil the ‘burden of proof’ test or that victims would not stand cross-examination. This delayed the eventual revelation regarding Saville’s actions.
The book is littered with examples similar to this whereby Robertson provides an argument and has a wealth of examples to illustrate his point. Simply put, freedom of speech in the United Kingdom is extended mainly to the rich who can shoulder the costs arising from legal cases and often, flaunt this fact in order to force media to retract statements or stop publishing altogether.
In concluding the book, Robertson offers several potential remedies such as allowing cases to be televised, reversing the burden of proof, ending the ‘balancing act’, and the return of juries in such trials. He also questions why human rights have been extended to corporations and the reason why so many multinationals bring their libel cases to the United Kingdom.
Whilst this is a very short book, it has an enjoyable amount of detail without being bogged down by legalese. Unfortunately, despite its short size, there is also a lot of repetition throughout the book. Overall, it was an enjoyable read.
March 4, 2023
For someone who obtained their BCL in the 1970s, Robertson’s prolific bibliography since that time is distinctly odd. Sure, there are a couple of editions of legal textbooks but apart from that his range is towards the political (as one would expect from his record as an advocate) and (sometimes eccentrically) populist, always fearless, always against abuse and injustice. Given this it seems carping to say that some of the books are well, a bit lacking in substance and rigour. And I feel that really acutely with this latest offering, which promises to reveal ‘how Russians, the Rich and the Government try to prevent free speech and how to stop them.’ More specifically the book endeavours to throw a light on how legal strategies are used to intimidate publishers in particular, and to propose reform. I suppose it sort of does some of this but I wonder who its intended audience is? The legal writing is at times too superficial for lawyers (and this matters especially if Robertson’s proposals for reform are going to have the intellectual backing they need) and some of the discussion prior to the Reform chapter feels unnecessarily rushed and sparing. For example, I for one would have liked to see more on Robertson’s really interesting analysis of how part of the Data Protection Act 2018 (s170) can actually be used as part of a ‘lawfare’ strategy. On the other hand, I wonder how much of the argument would be accessible to those who have no real acquaintance with English law and its attendant machinery of justice. So, I would have liked more substance but nevertheless of course I’ve learned things and I hope the book will ignite the debate it seeks to spark.
PS Is it me or is the ’TLS’ imprint the most incoherent in existence? I suppose it doesn’t really matter but it bothers my inner librarian.
PS Is it me or is the ’TLS’ imprint the most incoherent in existence? I suppose it doesn’t really matter but it bothers my inner librarian.
January 27, 2024
An interesting book about how UK law proves inadequate at handling libel cases. It mostly boils down to putting the burden of proof on the defendent in libel cases, so if someone were to write an article on a Russian oligarchs dodgy dealings, they would be the ones who had to provide evidence. Compound that with being able to claim in the UK if you have a reputation there to defend, which isn't hard if you're an oligarch as you probably have property, influence and friends in high places.
Basically its saying that current libel law in the UK makes proper investigative journalism very difficult to do, and exposes journalists and publications to potentially massive legal costs.
The book is quite short, but still does seem to go back over itself, and while its an important issue its very much written for the layman so I wonder if a more rigorous book would've been more effective as its still quite a dry read. I'd definitely recommend it if you're an activist, I suspect most journalists are already well versed in this stuff.
Will anything change? Who knows, maybe when we have a government that can focus on something other than tearing its own throat out, but time will tell.
Basically its saying that current libel law in the UK makes proper investigative journalism very difficult to do, and exposes journalists and publications to potentially massive legal costs.
The book is quite short, but still does seem to go back over itself, and while its an important issue its very much written for the layman so I wonder if a more rigorous book would've been more effective as its still quite a dry read. I'd definitely recommend it if you're an activist, I suspect most journalists are already well versed in this stuff.
Will anything change? Who knows, maybe when we have a government that can focus on something other than tearing its own throat out, but time will tell.
July 11, 2023
Having purchased it as a gift to Advocate Ashok Cherian, and read a few opening pages before wrapping it, I could not resist the desire to read the book in toto. So, I ordered it once again at a higher price (Believe me, the algorithm of Amazon was sure that I would buy it at any cost). The author is not new to me. His flowing language, sprinkled with copious supply of syntax, is a unique style indeed. Defamation and privacy are burning topics. It is unfortunate that UK is said to support libel tourism. Freedom of the press is at stake. Robertson's suggestions to make the system more supportive to investigative journalism, by change the law, especially reversing the burden of proof to the claimant rather than the defendant is quite pragmatic and need immediate attention. A book worth reading for those interested in defamation, privacy and media law and also for investigative journalists.
March 30, 2023
Really enjoyable (though alarming) and concise account of how freedom of speech in England & Wales is endangered by the rich, particularly oligarchs. I found the author’s unparalleled experience in media law compelling, coupled with his chapter on reform. Interesting to read how the burden of proof is on the Defendant in libel cases and how this is used to stifle freedom of expression. I also found the discussion on the “balancing act” between Article 8 and Article 10 ECHR particularly insightful. Recommend for anyone interested in free speech and / or media law.
May 28, 2024
Here I was, thinking we had free speech in the UK. I'll have to take it back! It's a heavy read with lots of legalities being explained, some repetitive examples, but overall a clear description of why the UK doesn't have free speech in investigative journalism. You just have to be rich, do whatever you want, and then no one can say a word against you - they can, but you might still win even more money. Worth the read.
May 5, 2023
Robertson goes on and on about how the British legal system is flawed, but not much about Russians. the subtitle is misleading. The Russians were perverting justice and hurting freedom of speech not because they're Russians but because they are rich and powerful, seems to be what this book is implying.
August 14, 2025
As someone who has greatly enjoyed Robertson's work in the past, this is probably too niche to be enjoyed by many outside of the UK. Unfortunately this was not apparent from the title or subtitle, and so I'd hoped for more about Australia's draconic defamation system. Perhaps next time.
September 14, 2023
Well worth a read. Highlights the extent our free speech is limited in the UK and sign posts the damage this does to society.
Really easy to read without dumbing down the content.
Really easy to read without dumbing down the content.
October 30, 2023
A concise and pragmatic approach to reforming defamation law in the UK and much of the Commonwealth.
April 16, 2025
A legal reformist's succint argumentative essay on the importance of three legal topics, namely freedom of speech, privacy and defamation. He argues that these three are interweaved into democracy. Recommended for law students wanting a kickstarter on research papers in the said legal topics.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews