Caroline Lucas and Campaigners Consider Appeal on Russian Interference Case After European Ruling
Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system
Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features
SUBSCRIBE TODAY
Former MPs including Caroline Lucas are considering whether to appeal a landmark ruling from the European Court of Human Rights that (ECHR) which found the Government had not failed to investigate Russian interference in British politics.
Ex-MPs Ben Bradshaw (Labour), Caroline Lucas (Green Party) and Alyn Smith (SNP) brought a case to the ECHR against the UK Government, arguing that Russia has engaged in "widespread and pervasive" interference in democratic elections in the UK and across Europe.
They argued that the aggressive tactics included "weaponising disinformation" to undermine democratic institutions, deliberate cyber-attacks against key public bodies, including election infrastructure, "hack and leak" operations, and the use of "cyber troops" and "troll farms" to manipulate public discourse and to sow discord between social groups.
Lucas and the other then-MPs told the court there was no public body with the legal responsibility to prevent and combat foreign interference in UK elections, no legal obligation for online political advertisements to indicate who had paid for them (this has now changed), no legal requirement for social media companies to cooperate with security and intelligence agencies, no clear-cut ban on foreign donations to political parties, and no obligation on foreign state agents to register (again, this has since changed).
Don't miss a story
SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES
And they claimed that despite the existence of credible allegations that Russia sought to interfere in the United Kingdom's democratic processes, the Government "neither investigated those allegations nor put in place an effective legal and institutional framework" to protect against the risk of such interference.
The court accepted that if hostile state interference posed a real risk of impairing the "very essence" of free elections, Governments would be required to adopt "positive measures" to protect election integrity.
The court also found that states cannot remain "passive when faced with evidence that their democratic processes are under threat."
And the court found there was sufficient evidence of Russian interference of adequate intensity to make the case valid.
Despite this, on Tuesday (22nd July), the court also ruled that the Government had not violated its duties when it came to protecting electoral integrity.
And despite acknowledging "undoubtedly shortcomings in the Government's initial response," the court found the UK had conducted two "thorough and independent investigations" into foreign interference through the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament which published the 'Russia Report' under Boris Johnson.
ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE
Receiv
Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features
SUBSCRIBE TODAY
Former MPs including Caroline Lucas are considering whether to appeal a landmark ruling from the European Court of Human Rights that (ECHR) which found the Government had not failed to investigate Russian interference in British politics.
Ex-MPs Ben Bradshaw (Labour), Caroline Lucas (Green Party) and Alyn Smith (SNP) brought a case to the ECHR against the UK Government, arguing that Russia has engaged in "widespread and pervasive" interference in democratic elections in the UK and across Europe.
They argued that the aggressive tactics included "weaponising disinformation" to undermine democratic institutions, deliberate cyber-attacks against key public bodies, including election infrastructure, "hack and leak" operations, and the use of "cyber troops" and "troll farms" to manipulate public discourse and to sow discord between social groups.
Lucas and the other then-MPs told the court there was no public body with the legal responsibility to prevent and combat foreign interference in UK elections, no legal obligation for online political advertisements to indicate who had paid for them (this has now changed), no legal requirement for social media companies to cooperate with security and intelligence agencies, no clear-cut ban on foreign donations to political parties, and no obligation on foreign state agents to register (again, this has since changed).
Don't miss a story
SIGN UP TO EMAIL UPDATES
And they claimed that despite the existence of credible allegations that Russia sought to interfere in the United Kingdom's democratic processes, the Government "neither investigated those allegations nor put in place an effective legal and institutional framework" to protect against the risk of such interference.
The court accepted that if hostile state interference posed a real risk of impairing the "very essence" of free elections, Governments would be required to adopt "positive measures" to protect election integrity.
The court also found that states cannot remain "passive when faced with evidence that their democratic processes are under threat."
And the court found there was sufficient evidence of Russian interference of adequate intensity to make the case valid.
Despite this, on Tuesday (22nd July), the court also ruled that the Government had not violated its duties when it came to protecting electoral integrity.
And despite acknowledging "undoubtedly shortcomings in the Government's initial response," the court found the UK had conducted two "thorough and independent investigations" into foreign interference through the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament which published the 'Russia Report' under Boris Johnson.
ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE
Receiv
Activity