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
Channel 4
2 hours ago
- Channel 4
Hostage release should be ‘pre-condition' to recognise Palestinian state
We spoke to Adam Rose, a lawyer acting for British families whose relatives are being held hostage in Gaza. We asked him why the hostages' families were so upset at the Government's proposal to recognise a Palestinian state with certain conditions.
Reuters
4 hours ago
- Reuters
Who is Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian war hawk who got under Trump's skin?
Aug 3 (Reuters) - Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev has become embroiled in a tense back-and-forth on social media that prompted U.S. President Donald Trump to announce he had ordered the re-positioning of two U.S. nuclear submarines. Who is Medvedev, what is his track record and how influential is he? Medvedev was elected Russian president in 2008 when Vladimir Putin, having served two terms, was barred from standing again under the law in force at that time. Medvedev ran the Kremlin for four years, with Putin as his prime minister but widely assumed by analysts in Russia and the West to be still calling the shots, before the two swapped places after the 2012 election - a political manoeuvre that provoked opposition protests. Medvedev, the son of two university professors, had studied law and worked for a time in the private sector. Short in height and quietly spoken, he was described by contemporaries as cultured and intelligent. As president, he was seen initially in the West as a potential moderniser and reformer, prepared to work to thaw relations with the United States. In 2009 he signed the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty with President Barack Obama. But Medvedev's presidency also saw Russia fight a brief war with its neighbour Georgia in 2008, and he failed to achieve his stated goals of tackling pervasive corruption, improving the rule of law in Russia, strengthening the role of civil society and rebalancing the economy to reduce its over-reliance on oil and gas production. Medvedev served as Putin's prime minister for eight years in a period in which tensions with the West escalated anew, particularly over Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine. But his political fortunes took a dive when he was removed in January 2020 and replaced by Mikhail Mishustin, who has held the post ever since. Medvedev was shunted into a new role as deputy chairman of the Security Council, a powerful body that includes the heads of Russia's intelligence services. After Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Medvedev carved out a new role for himself as an arch-hawk and full-throated champion of the war, hurling aggressive rhetoric at Kyiv and the West and warning repeatedly of the risk of a nuclear "apocalypse". In May 2024 he said it would be a "fatal mistake" on the part of the West to think that Russia was not ready to use tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine. He also spoke of the potential to strike unnamed hostile countries with strategic nuclear weapons. His statements - including personal attacks on foreign leaders - were frequently designed to shock, insult and provoke. He referred to Ukrainians as "cockroaches", in language Kyiv condemned as openly genocidal, and called President Volodymyr Zelenskiy a criminal, a drug addict, a louse, a rat and a freak. In January 2023, he accused Japan's prime minister of shameful subservience to the United States and suggested he should ritually disembowel himself. Russian opposition figures have dismissed Medvedev's outpourings as sad, impotent rants. However, some Western diplomats say they give a flavour of the thinking in Kremlin policy-making circles. Until now, they have rarely provoked a direct response from Western leaders. That changed last month when Trump rebuked Medvedev and accused him of throwing around the "N" word after the Russian criticised U.S. air strikes on Iran and said "a number of countries" were ready to supply Iran with nuclear warheads. When Trump imposed a deadline on Moscow to end the war in Ukraine or face further sanctions, including on buyers of its exports, Medvedev accused him of playing a "game of ultimatums" and moving a step closer to war between Russia and the U.S. Trump retorted: "Tell Medvedev, the failed former President of Russia, who thinks he's still President, to watch his words. He's entering very dangerous territory!" Medvedev waded in again last Thursday, saying Trump's "nervous reaction" showed Russia was on the right course and referring again to Moscow's nuclear capabilities. Trump delivered his statement the following day on posting U.S. nuclear submarines in "the appropriate regions", since when Medvedev has not posted again.
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
What is Yvette Cooper's plan to fast-track asylum claims?
As tensions flare up in the UK over migration, with protests taking place in Newcastle, Manchester and north London, the government is pursuing a new plan to reduce the asylum backlog. The home secretary has said she plans to introduce a fast-track scheme to turn around asylum decisions within weeks, via a 'major overhaul' of the appeal process. The plan is part of a wider attempt to crack down on the number of people crossing the Channel, with Ms Cooper announcing a 'one-in-one-out' returns deal with France earlier this year. But despite their efforts, last week it was revealed that the number of migrants arriving in the UK after crossing the English Channel topped 25,000 in record time, piling pressure on the government to take further action. It is hoped that the new plan will make a dent in the backlog and return people to safe countries faster, reducing the number of asylum seekers who are housed in hotels while awaiting the outcome of a claim or appeal. Here, The Independent takes a look at everything we know about the plan so far and how it will work in practice. How would the fast-track system work? Asylum seekers and their families are housed in temporary accommodation, including hotels, if they are waiting for the outcome of a claim or an appeal and have been assessed as not being able to support themselves independently. But Yvette Cooper has now promised a 'major overhaul' of the appeal process, speeding up the time it takes for decisions on claims and appeals to be made. There are currently limited details on how this system would work, but sources told the Sunday Times it would allow decisions to be taken within weeks, rather than months or even years. Once a decision has been taken, those who have been rejected will be returned to their home country – reducing the number of people housed in temporary accommodation. 'If we speed up the decision-making appeal system and also then keep increasing returns, we hope to be able to make quite a big reduction in the overall numbers in the asylum system, because that is the best way to actually restore order and control,' Ms Cooper said. When will it be implemented? The home secretary has said she will legislate for the changes in autumn, when MPs return from their summer break. But it could take months for any legislation to pass through parliament, meaning we are unlikely to see the fast-track system implemented until the new year. How big is the asylum backlog and why is tackling it a priority? As of the end of March 2025, there were 78,745 asylum applications awaiting an initial decision – an 8 per cent decrease from the end of June 2024 and a 13 per cent decrease compared to the end of December 2024, official immigration statistics show. These outstanding cases related to 109,536 people, including both main applicants and their dependents. Labour has put a pledge to fix the 'broken' asylum system and crack down on the number of people coming to the UK on small boats at the centre of its plan for government. But with boat crossings at a record high, and the asylum backlog still above 75,000, there is mounting pressure on ministers to take more drastic action, a pressure exacerbated by the success of Reform UK in the polls. The government has also promised to end the use of asylum hotels before the end of this parliament, a promise it is unlikely to meet unless the backlog is reduced. Tensions over asylum hotels have flared up in recent weeks, with a protest and counter-protest taking place on Saturday outside the Thistle City Barbican Hotel in north London, and also in Newcastle and Manchester.
