Contrary to its unrelenting propaganda, the British media enjoys great editorial latitude in the UK – about which I can attest as a media lawyer who has done defendant work for over 30 years. Yet it constantly lobbies for more – something that should concern all of us who do crisis PR.

Last week the Commons debated Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), which is the misuse of the law by corrupt organisations and individuals – usually based overseas. 

All agreed that SLAPPs should be tackled but the difficulty was deciding exactly what a SLAPP is, and how to deal with it in a way that does not hinder company's and individuals legitimately protecting their reputation.

Long before the term reached the UK, I dealt with my first SLAPP in 1991. The claimant was a corrupt local councillor abusing his masonic contacts to secure planning permission for land which he bought for a song and then sold at a vast profit. When ITV caught him at it, he sued for libel. After months of fieldwork and research I was able to prove the truth of the allegations, and he abandoned the claim.

So my experience of SLAPPs extends over 30 years, but contrary to what newspapers and politicians tell you, they are a rarity. By comparison the abuse of all of us by some Fleet Street titles deploying its army of well-paid lawyers to spread disinformation and cover up serious wrongdoing is a far greater problem. There is ample judicial and regulatory support for the principle that there is no public interest in the public being misled.

This means companies and individuals threatened by the media with false and brand damaging coverage should utilise the available regulatory and legal protections. Their subtle and informed deployment is key to effective crisis PR, which I illustrate by two pieces of work I undertook last week.

The first was for a brand-leading corporate client whose business model inevitably generates media issues, normally through no fault of its own. I have done its work for over a decade. A detailed enquiry came in from the BBC making a programme about an emotive incident involving my client company.

For most the week I was in cordial dialogue with the BBC journalist was making the programme, which I undertook in close association with the client’s senior management. I drew on experience gained from 30 years of acting for broadcasters and a thorough knowledge of the applicable regulation and law. The result is the BBC has been persuaded that my client is not at fault, and the story has been moved on to wider issues of public concern.

The second was for a blue-chip educational establishment – again a market leader and existing client. This was a press enquiry, with which again I dealt with liaising with senior management. The senior editorial lawyer at the paper, is a friend and colleague whom I hired years ago as my trainee when I was a partner at Schillings. My client’s account of the events was accepted by the paper in part because of my 30-year professional relationship with its editorial lawyer, and in part because she knows I am as familiar with the applicable law and regulation as she is.

All editorial decisions are based on an assessment of risk. Regulatory and legal strictures are therefore much more likely to be complied with by the media if there is risk of being to account otherwise.