Latest news with #ISC
The National
2 days ago
- 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.'
South Wales Guardian
2 days ago
- Politics
- South Wales Guardian
Human rights ‘not breached over election interference probe refusal'
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.' 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.'
South Wales Argus
2 days ago
- Politics
- South Wales Argus
Human rights ‘not breached over election interference probe refusal'
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.' 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.'
North Wales Chronicle
2 days ago
- Politics
- North Wales Chronicle
Human rights ‘not breached over election interference probe refusal'
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.' 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.'
Glasgow Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Glasgow Times
Human rights ‘not breached over election interference probe refusal'
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.' 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.'
