Human rights ‘not breached over election interference probe refusal'
The Strasbourg court acknowledged there was evidence of a 'significant and ongoing threat' to the UK's democratic processes from Vladimir Putin's country, but said Westminster had taken action to respond to the danger.
Judgment Bradshaw and Others v. the United Kingdom – Alleged interference by Russia in UK elections – the UK Government's response did not violate the right to free electionshttps://t.co/a81bFS1V6U#ECHR #CEDH #ECHRpress pic.twitter.com/zfMUyjYX4q
— ECHR CEDH (@ECHR_CEDH) July 22, 2025
The case was lodged at the ECtHR in 2022 by three then-MPs, Labour's Sir Ben Bradshaw, the Green Party's Caroline Lucas and the SNP's Alyn Smith, after applications for a judicial review of Boris Johnson's decision not to order an investigation into Russian activities were declined by domestic courts.
In a judgment published on Tuesday, the court ruled that the UK Government's response did not violate the right to free elections.
The judgment said: 'While the Court does not underestimate the threat posed by the spreading of disinformation and the running of 'influence campaigns', their nature is nevertheless such that it is difficult to assess accurately the impact that they may have on individual voters and, by extension, on the outcome of a given election.'
There was also a risk to freedom of expression if there were 'knee-jerk reactions' to debate during an election contest.
'There is a very fine line between addressing the dangers of disinformation and outright censorship,' the judgment said.
Any actions taken by states 'to counter the risk of foreign election interference through the dissemination of disinformation and the running of influence campaigns' would have to be balanced against the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
'Therefore, while states should not remain passive when faced with evidence that their democratic processes are under threat they must be accorded a wide margin of appreciation in the choice of means to be adopted in order to counter such threats,' the judgment said.
'In the court's view, the United Kingdom's response to the threat of Russian election interference did not fall outside the wide margin of appreciation afforded to it in this area.'
The case followed reports from the Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) which looked at alleged Russian disinformation campaigns, including during the 2016 Brexit referendum.
The court noted that 'there were undoubtedly shortcomings in the Government's initial response' to the Russian threat but there were 'thorough and independent investigations' by the ISC and the DCMS committee..
The judgment also noted that following the publication of the ISC report in 2020 there had been new laws passed to help address the risk: the Elections Act 2022, the National Security Act 2023 ('the NSA 2023') and the Online Safety Act 2023.
Following the judgment, Ms Lucas said: 'It's hugely significant that the court has found in favour of our case that foreign interference is a threat to our right to free and fair elections and that they recognise there will be cases when states do have a duty to investigate.
'And while it's clearly disappointing that they found that the Government had done enough, I've no doubt that this will continue to be contested.
'The bottom line is that we still cannot be assured that our democratic system is robust against foreign interference – and for as long as that is the case, we will continue to explore all possible avenues for remedy.'
Tessa Gregory, a partner at Leigh Day – the law firm which represented the three former MPs, said: 'In an important judgment, which will have far-reaching implications, the court has accepted, contrary to the UK's submissions, that in order to safeguard citizens' right to free and fair elections, states will in certain circumstances have to take positive action against foreign interference in electoral processes including by investigating credible allegations.
'Our clients continue to think the UK has fallen short of protecting our democracy and are considering next steps in relation to the court's conclusion that there has been no violation of their right to free and fair elections.'
A Government spokesman said: 'We note today's judgment, which found no violation.
'We are committed to safeguarding our electoral processes, which is why we recently announced tougher new rules on political donations to protect our elections from the growing danger of foreign interference.
'These changes will boost transparency and accountability in politics by closing loopholes that would allow foreign donors to influence elections.
'More broadly, national security is our first responsibility, and we have taken action to harden and sharpen our approach to threats – whether standing with Ukraine against Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, placing Russia on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, and working with allies to monitor and counter Russian submarines and ships in UK waters.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scottish Sun
a minute ago
- Scottish Sun
Putin's Aeroflot airline crippled by huge pro-Ukraine hack that ‘destroyed' IT system grounding flights & sparking chaos
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) RUSSIA'S main state airline Aeroflot was crippled by a "massive hack" today, grounding hundreds of flights. Pro-Ukraine hackers have claimed responsibility for the chaotic airport disarray in Moscow. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 5 An Airbus A321-211 aircraft of Russian airline Aeroflot Credit: Reuters 5 A major collapse hit Russian airline Aeroflot today in a suspected massive hack, triggering the cancellation of dozens of Aeroflot flights Credit: East2West 5 Travel mayhem gripped Aeroflot hub Sheremetyevo airport in Moscow today Credit: East2West 5 Hackers Silent Crow and Cyber Partisans BY have claimed joint responsibility for an attack Credit: East2West It follows major disruption caused by Ukrainian military drones, which led to days of problems for travellers. Hackers Silent Crow and Cyber Partisans BY, which are pro-Ukraine, have claimed joint responsibility for an attack. They say they have been working to undermine the Russian airline's computer systems "for one year". Travel mayhem gripped Aeroflot hub Sheremetyevo airport in Moscow today. Dozens, then hundreds, of flights were cancelled - with more expected. A Silent Crow statement says: "Together with our colleagues from Cyber Partisans BY, we declare the successful completion of a prolonged and large-scale operation, as a result of which the internal IT infrastructure of Aeroflot Russian Airlines was completely compromised and destroyed. "For a year we were inside their corporate network, methodically developing access, going deeper to the very core of the infrastructure." The hackers also said they back the democratic opposition in neighbouring Belarus - a close Russian ally. Aeroflot passengers were told: "Aeroflot Russia has announced changes to its schedule due to an information system failure. "Some flights have been rescheduled or cancelled. Nato jets scrambled as 'Russian drone' flies over EU state after Putin launches massive overnight attack on Ukraine "Passengers on cancelled flights are eligible for refunds and rebooking on flights within the next 10 days." But there was further confusion for passengers, as the same message added: "Please note that the airport ticket offices are temporarily unable to issue refunds or rebook tickets." Passengers were ordered: "To avoid crowding, please leave Sheremetyevo Airport and reissue or refund your tickets through the call centre. "Thank you for your understanding." On Telegram, the airline said: "As a result, schedule adjustments for some flights are expected, including delays and cancellations." Aeroflot has been hit by Western sanctions but has continued to operate since Putin's brutal invasion of Ukraine. The claimed hackers also sent a sneering message to Russia's FSB security service. They said: "You are incapable of protecting even your key infrastructures. "To all employees of the repressive apparatus — your digital security is insignificant, and you yourselves have long been under observation. "In the near future, the publication of part of the obtained data will begin. ' "We did not just destroy the infrastructure — we left a trace. Glory to Ukraine! Long live Belarus!" The hackers further claimed they managed to "obtain and download the full array of flight history databases". "Restoration will require, possibly, tens of millions of dollars. The damage is strategic," they added. There was no immediate independent verification of the damage caused to Aeroflot. Silent Crow earlier this year claimed to have hacked Rostelecom, Russia's state communications giant. The Kremlin made clear it was alarmed by the Aeroflot hacking, which was confirmed by the Russian prosecutor-general's office. Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the disruption to the airline was "quite alarming". "The threat of hacking is a threat that remains for all large companies that provide services to the public," he said. "We will, of course, clarify the information and wait for the relevant explanations." A criminal case was launched into the hack.
Daily Mail
2 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Labour admits BREXIT is to thank for Britain securing a better US trade deal than Europe - as bloc's leaders hit out at their 'badly negotiated' agreement
Brexit is to thank for Britain securing a better trade deal with the US than Europe, Labour admitted yesterday. Jonathan Reynolds, the Business Secretary, said there was 'absolutely no doubt' that the UK was better off as a result of having its own trade policy. His comments came after Donald Trump announced he had agreed 'the biggest deal ever made' between the US and the European Union. The agreement will subject the EU to 15per cent tariffs on most of its goods entering America. It is lower than a 30per cent levy previously threatened by the US president - but worse than the UK's deal - and was quickly lambasted by European leaders. After a day playing golf in Scotland yesterday, Mr Trump met the president of the EU Commission Ursula von der Leyen to discuss the broad terms of an agreement. But Viktor Orban, the Hungarian PM, hit out: 'Donald Trump ate von der Leyen for breakfast'. 'This is what happened and we suspected this would happen as the U.S. president is a heavyweight when it comes to negotiations while Madame President is featherweight.' Former Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt branded the deal 'scandalous' and 'badly negotiated', saying there was 'not one concession from the American side'. French prime minister François Bayrou said: 'It is a dark day when an alliance of free peoples, united to affirm their values and defend their interests, resolves to submission.' And Bernd Lange, the EU Parliament's trade chief, said: 'My first assessment: Not satisfactory. 'This is a lopsided deal. Concessions have clearly been made that are difficult to accept. Deal with significant imbalance. Furthermore lot of questions still open.' But Ms von der Leyen said the deal was 'huge', adding: 'It will bring stability. It will bring predictability. That's very important for our businesses on both sides of the Atlantic.' Mr Trump said the 'partnership' would 'bring us very close together'. He added: 'I think it's great that we made a deal today instead of playing games and maybe not making a deal at all.' Full details of the deal have not yet been confirmed, and a written text still needs to be agreed. But the agreement is worse than a similar deal struck between the UK and US, which will see tariffs of only 10per cent placed on British exports. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds this morning admitted that the UK's favourable deal was a direct benefit of Brexit. He told Sky News: 'All of the trade negotiations that we've got use the fact that we are not part of the customs union anymore, I'm absolutely clear of that. I think we can make the best of that.' Pressed on whether he would call it a Brexit benefit, he added: 'I'm absolutely clear, I've said in Parliament many times, this is a benefit of being out of the European Union, having our independent trade policy, absolutely no doubt about that.' When the UK and US signed a trade deal in June, it reduced tariffs on car and aerospace imports to the US. But agreement on a similar arrangement for Britain's steel imports was not reached, leaving tariffs on steel at 25per cent. American concerns over steel products made elsewhere in the world, then finished in the UK, are said to be among the sticking points. Sir Keir Starmer is expected to spend most of the day with President Trump on Monday, when he will have a chance to press the president on a steel deal. But Business Secretary Mr Reynolds suggested it may take more than a meeting between the two leaders to resolve the matter, telling BBC Breakfast: 'We were very happy to announce the breakthrough that we had a few months ago in relation to sectors like automotive, aerospace, which are really important to the UK economy. 'But we always said it was job saved, but it wasn't job done. There's more to do. The negotiations have been going on on a daily basis since then. There's a few issues to push a little bit further today. 'We won't perhaps have anything to announce a resolution of those talks, but there's some sectors that we still need to resolve, particularly around steel and aluminium, and there's the wider conversation about what the US calls its reciprocal tariffs.'
Telegraph
2 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Miniscule public sector productivity growth is nothing to celebrate
Let us start with the good news. The latest official estimates suggest that public service productivity grew by 1.0 per cent in the first quarter of the year compared to the same period of 2024, led by a 2.7 per cent increase in healthcare. But gosh, was that needed. The annual data show that public service productivity was still 4.2 per cent lower in 2024 than the pre-pandemic peak in 2019. Over this period, the output of public services – such as the number of treatments on the NHS, and lessons provided in state schools – has risen by an average of around 12 per cent. However, the inputs required to produce that output – mainly labour and materials – have risen even further, by almost 17 per cent. The difference between these two numbers is the shortfall in productivity. Worse still, this follows a long period of stagnation which goes back to at least 1997, when comparable data are first available. Over more than a quarter of a century, productivity in public services has improved by a grand total of just 0.3 per cent. This year alone, day-to-day public spending is expected to exceed £500 billion, mainly on health, education and defence. Raising public sector productivity by one per cent a year over five years would therefore allow the government to provide the same services for about £25 billion less. In turn, this could fill the 'black hole' in the public finances without the need for any cuts in services, or yet more tax increases. Of course, this is easier said than done. It is generally harder to raise productivity in services activities than in, say, manufacturing, energy, or communications. This is especially true of activities requiring lots of personal contact, such as medicine and teaching, or the arts and entertainment. But the problems do appear to be much larger in the public than the private sector. Four factors come up over and over again. One is the lack of competition. It is no surprise that sectors where market pressures are stronger also tend to be those where productivity gains are greater. Another is that the public sector is more heavily unionised – and the unions themselves tend to be more militant. This is reflected in greater resistance to change, including more flexible working practices that put service users first. Third, public services are too reliant on the Treasury for funding. This might make sense for genuine public goods, such as defence, which cannot be left to the markets. But it leaves services like the NHS vulnerable to short-termist political choices. Providing any service 'for free' is also unlikely to be good for efficiency. Finally, and related to all the first three, the public sector has been relatively slow to adopt new technologies – as almost anyone who has engaged with the NHS will know. The scope for AI to transform the provision of public services is surely huge. There are at least some encouraging signs. NHS productivity did start to improve in the final years of the last Government, partly thanks to pressure from then-Chancellor Jeremy Hunt. The latest data suggest this trend is continuing and Wes Streeting is certainly making the right noises. However, the scale of the challenge cannot be underestimated either. The public sector is becoming an increasingly unmanageable Leviathan. The Government is taking on more and more functions, while backtracking on commitments to reform in many other areas – from planning regulations to welfare spending. Some real action is needed soon to keep the cost of public services from spiralling out of control.
