Slapps, NDAs and gendered ‘lawfare’: how the rich and powerful silence victims of sexual offences

The conviction of Russell Brand came nearly two decades after “Me Too” was coined. Yet the years the former comedian avoided accountability serve as a stark reminder of the dangers victims still face when speaking out. The truth is that women who name predators are increasingly at risk of legal proceedings. While the #MeToo movement emboldened victims to speak truth to power, it also exposed the tactics offenders use to silence them. UN special rapporteur Irene Khan, described this as a “perverse twist” in the age of #MeToo. Research has shed light on what’s really happening here – mechanisms designed to provide justice can be used to suppress victims and provide impunity for those with money and power. So how can this happen in countries that are supposed to be committed to fundamental rights and the rule of law? Across the world, powerful people are evading scrutiny by threatening legal action that could leave their accusers ruined financially. When powerful people use the law, or even just the threat of it, to suppress criticism, it is known as strategic lawsuits against public participation (Slapp). You might wonder why courts don’t simply dismiss these cases. In practice, it is rare that they even make it before a judge, because the threat is often enough to push a settlement. For many, as one victim said, “silence is the only way to survive”. The aim is not to win the case, but to turn the process of defending the action into a punishment. Gendered lawfare Slapps take many forms. Many people might picture a corporation or politician suing a public watchdog. Less well known are Slapps targeting victims of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV). Often referred to as a kind of gendered censorship or gendered lawfare, these lawsuits are prevalent and equally chilling. Rather than seeking justice, these legal tactics are used to create fear, financial pressure and a culture of self-censorship. Brand was convicted of rape and three counts of sexual assault against four women. Maxim Elramsisy/Shutterstock When reporting on SGBV, the stakes are high enough for large media organisations. So imagine how high they are for victims. In 2023, a woman called Nina Cresswell shared her story of sexual abuse on social media. It related to an incident in 2010, and Cresswell said she was motivated to speak out by guilt at the thought of another woman suffering what she had gone through. But just days later, her alleged abuser sued her for defamation. The lawsuit did three things. By suing Cresswell, the perpetrator denied the abuse, attacked his accuser, and recast himself as the victim. This tactic is known as Darvo – Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. It has become an integral part of gendered-Slapp suits. Cresswell won her case, but she lost almost three years of her life to litigation. No police action was taken against the man. Brand has been accused of similar tactics. He reportedly obtained an anti-harassment injunction against Szilvia Berki after she made allegations against him. The injunction – which is still in place – is far-reaching and prohibits Berki from repeating her allegations, including to friends and family. She was left with £50,000 in legal costs, and the judge authorised Brand’s lawyers to begin bankruptcy proceedings against her. While the full story behind the injunction appears to be complicated, Berki’s experience shows the scope of these gagging orders and the financial cost associated with fighting one. Entertainer David Walliams attempted to secure an injunction to suppress claims of sexual misconduct. While he denies all allegations against him, his application was refused and the findings of investigations by The Guardian and ITV News are now public. Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) are also a major part of gendered censorship. For years, contracts were used to silence victims and witnesses of SGBV. Zelda Perkins, a former personal assistant to disgraced US film producer Harvey Weinstein, was bound by an NDA after she tried to expose his predatory behaviour. In a remarkable act of courage, she broke her NDA, exposing herself to substantial legal risk. She has been campaigning for reform ever since. On an episode of the News Agents podcast, Perkins revealed that she believes there are several women who entered into NDAs with Brand. Ending gendered censorship There is no silver bullet in this struggle, yet there has been some progress. In the UK, the Victims and Courts Act 2026 voids any provision in an agreement that prevents a disclosure relating to criminal conduct. And the Employment Rights Act 2025 protects a worker’s right to disclose harassment and discrimination. But more must be done. Perkins warned that Slapps – “the evil cousin of NDAs”, remain a real threat to victims. When it comes to combatting them, the UK lags behind other countries. In the UK, Slapp targets are only protected when reporting on economic and financial crime, and even then, only to a limited extent. Victims of SGBV are left largely unprotected. Parliament is debating whether to extend protections to everyone speaking out on public interest matters. But recent reports have been a reminder that stronger anti-Slapp protections are needed to prevent the law becoming an instrument of the powerful against those alleging abuse.