The thing that many people point to as being "crazy" in England and Wales defamation law is that if the defendant is relying on truth as a defence, then the defendant must prove (on balance or probability) it is true, rather than having to have the claimant proving it is false.

Now, I will happily argue with anyone that that is the correct way round, actually, but the more relevant issues that made England and Wales ideal for libel tourism were:

• no minimum for the amount of reputational damage, and
• the fact that the loser pays the winner's legal fees (true in all civil cases, not just defamation).

This meant that if I said your company killed hundreds of people, when really you only killed a few, you could sue me for defamation, and even if you were awarded £1 in damages (which often happened when you were only "technically" defamed), I'd be on the hook for your legal fees, which would be in the tens of thousands at least.

Since the Defamation Act 2013 introduced a requirement of "serious reputational harm", this has no longer been so much of an issue.

The main issue is that JKR is engaging in SLAPP suits. JKR would not win against Amnesty UK in a defamation suit, IMO, since the damage to JKR's reputation has already been done (amongst other reasons) before Amnesty UK said anything, but the fact remains that if she sued and Amnesty UK fought it, they'd be on the hook for paying out hundreds of thousands in legal fees over several years, out of pocket, until they eventually won in the end, in which case they'd get most of it back. And while I think Amnesty UK definitely could do that, and are cowards for choosing not to, I definitely concede that it's rational of them to not bother.

I would definitely argue that we should have some anti-SLAPP legislation, most places still don't, so that's not really particularly crazy.

The burden of evidence is on the defendant in British courts.

Rich britons love suing the critics.