Latest news with #BenBradshaw
The National
22-07-2025
- Politics
- The National
‘No breach' by UK Government of human rights on Russia probe
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found there was no breach of measures aimed at ensuring free and fair elections after a long-running legal action backed by three former MPs. 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. The case was lodged at the ECtHR in 2022 by three then-MPs, Labour's Ben Bradshaw, the Green Party's Caroline Lucas and the SNP's Alyn Smith (below), 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 yesterday, 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. READ MORE: 'Wake up, America!': Alan Cumming hits out at Donald Trump over trans attacks 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, 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.' READ MORE: Broadcast watchdog called in over Labour's 'misleading' Scottish water claim 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 UK 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, 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.'
The Independent
22-07-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Human rights ‘not breached over election interference probe refusal'
The UK Government did not breach human rights laws by refusing to order an independent investigation into Russian interference in elections. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found there was no breach of measures aimed at ensuring free and fair elections after a long-running legal action backed by three former MPs. 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. 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.'
Yahoo
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Human rights ‘not breached over election interference probe refusal'
The UK government did not breach human rights laws by refusing to order an independent investigation into Russian interference in elections. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found there was no breach of measures aimed at ensuring free and fair elections after a long-running legal action backed by three former MPs. 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:// #CEDH #ECHRpress — 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.'
The Sun
22-07-2025
- Politics
- The Sun
European court dismisses UK MPs' case on Russia election meddling
STRASBOURG: The European Court of Human Rights has dismissed a case filed by three British MPs accusing the UK government of failing to address alleged Russian interference in key elections. The ruling follows a 2021 High Court rejection of the same claim. The MPs—Labour's Ben Bradshaw, Green Party's Caroline Lucas, and SNP's Alyn Smith—argued that the government violated the European Convention on Human Rights by not investigating credible claims of foreign meddling in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, 2016 Brexit vote, and 2019 general election. The court ruled that the applicants could not be considered 'victims' of any legal breach, stating they failed to prove personal harm or that the electoral process was fundamentally compromised. 'States should not remain passive when faced with evidence that their democratic processes are under threat,' the court noted, but added that the UK had a 'wide margin of appreciation' in handling such threats. A 2020 UK parliamentary report found no conclusive evidence of Russian interference but criticised the government for taking 'its eye off the ball.' Critics linked official inaction to Conservative Party ties with Russian donors. The ECHR oversees human rights compliance across 46 member states. – AFP
The Guardian
22-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
UK does not need to hold inquiry into Russian disinformation, ECHR rules
An attempt by three former MPs to force the UK government to hold an inquiry into the impact of Russian disinformation on the Brexit vote and other recent elections has failed at the European court of human rights. The Strasbourg court ruled on Tuesday that countries had a 'wide margin' in determining how to tackle attempts at electoral interference, and ruled against a case brought by Ben Bradshaw, Caroline Lucas and Alyn Smith. Though the seven judges on the court held 'there were undoubtedly shortcomings' in the UK's initial response to allegations of Russian interference into the 2016 referendum, the deficit was made up for subsequently. They noted that there had been two inquiries in the UK, including the Russia report by the intelligence and security committee in 2020, and a succession of legislation, including the National Security Act 2023, as a response to the issue. 'While the applicants have criticised these measures as 'too little, too late', the measures nevertheless appear to address the points raised by the applicants,' concluded the judges in a ruling released on Tuesday morning. Russia has been repeatedly accused of trying to influence western elections in the Kremlin's interest, including the hack of sensitive Democratic party emails in July 2016, before Donald Trump's first election as president. Moscow also sought to interfere in the 2019 election in the UK, by amplifying an illicitly acquired NHS dossier, which ended up in the hands of Jeremy Corbyn, though the then Labour leader was unaware of the dissemination effort. However, the European court concluded while the threat posed by disinformation should not be underestimated, the precise impact of Russian or other interference efforts was 'difficult to assess accurately' and in particular 'the impact that they may have on individual voters and, by extension, on the outcome of a given election'. The three former MPs, from Labour, the Green party and the SNP, all opponents of Brexit, had launched a judicial review application at the high court in the aftermath of the Russia report. Rejected by the court in London, they turned to the Strasbourg court, which ruled that their case was admissible. The ex-MPs argued the UK government and intelligence agencies failed to conduct any proper assessment of Kremlin attempts to interfere with the Brexit vote, which they said was a breach of article 3, protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights, which covers the right to free elections. But on Tuesday, the judges concluded 'any failings cannot be considered to be sufficiently grave as to have impaired the very essence' of the three former MPs' rights to participate in free and fair elections. Though democracies should 'not remain passive' in defending themselves, 'they must be accorded a wide margin of appreciation' in determining how to do so, the judges held. Counter-disinformation efforts 'needed to be balanced' against freedom of expression, particularly important during an election period, they added.
