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.
The former MPs and their legal team said they were pleased with aspects of the ruling, noting it was the first time the European court had considered how democracies should protect themselves from external meddling.
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.”
A government spokesperson said the court had found no violation of human rights law. They added that the UK was “committed to safeguarding our electoral processes” and highlighted plans announced last week to close loopholes that could allow foreign money to influence UK elections.
Russia has been accused repeatedly 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 that 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 had 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.
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.
