26 April 2023 – Could This Be A Significant Day For the UK Government And The Russia Report?

The British Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament (ISC) Russia report is the official government report into allegations of Russian interference in British politics and the UK’s political process.?The report included alleged Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum and the 2014 Scottish independence referendum. The ISC inquiry began in November 2017, and a 50-page report was completed in March 2019. Upon completion of the report, it was subjected to a robust process of redaction by intelligence and security agencies. The report was then sent to Prime Minister Boris Johnson on 17 October 2019. The redacted report was finally published in July 2020 amidst significant criticism of Prime Minister Johnson’s government refusal to release the report to the public before the general election in December 2019.

Prime Minister Johnson finally approved the release of the report on 13 December 2019, the day after the general election, but still the publication of the report was delayed even though a former chair of the ISC, Dominic Grieve, had said that the time between approval of release and publication was typically 10 days. Prime Minister Johnson had publicly stated that the report could not be released until the Intelligence and Security Committee was reconstituted. Incredibly, by June 2020, the report had still not been released. The Intelligence and Security Committee had still not been reconvened, the single longest break in the committee's history since its inception in 1994. The continual delays in the publication of the ISC report prompted a cross-party group of 30 MPs to urge the committee to be reconstituted as a matter of national urgency. The cross-party group citied that issues of "transparency and integrity" of the United Kingdoms democratic process were at stake by the government withholding the release of the report.

The heavily redacted report was published on 21 July 2020 almost 18 months after its completion by the ISC. One of the most significant findings of the ISC report was that there was substantial evidence that Russian interference in British politics was now commonplace.?

The report highlighted that the United Kingdom was one of Russia's "top targets" and said it is "seen as central to the Western anti-Russian lobby.” Some of the key findings of the ISC report included:

• The UK government failed to investigate evidence of successful interference in democratic processes.
• ‘Credible open-source commentary’ suggested Russia sought to influence the Scottish independence referendum.
• That Russian influence in the UK was ‘the new normal’.
• There were clear links between the Russian elite and UK politics.
• The UK Intelligence community ‘took its eye off the ball’ on Russia.

The report was heavily criticised due to its significant redaction and the lack of reasonable explanation by the government over the delay of its release. The whole affair was seen as a compromising lack of both electoral process and national security efforts to prevent Russian interference in the UK’s democratic electoral process. Outraged by this, a group of parliamentarians, supported by the campaigning journalism organization The Citizens, took the decision to take the UK government firstly to the High Court in London, and then to the European Court of Human Rights, claiming that the government had infringed the countries right to free and fair elections by failing to prevent or act on the findings of the ISC Russia report. The group also claimed that the UK Government failed to ensure that it had in place a legislative and policy framework that would identify and protect against interference in the UK electoral system. This was the first time in history that a group of sitting MP’s had taken the Government to court on the grounds of national security.?

ECHR Protocol 1, Article 3: Right to free elections states that:

“The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.”

The cross-party parliamentary group alleged that the right to free elections imposed certain obligations on the state to ensure the integrity of their electoral processes, including a duty to investigate possible interference by foreign hostile states, and that the actions of the UK government constituted a serious breach of its obligations to the people. The initial case at the High Court in London had been rejected in late 2021. The cross parliamentary group had claimed that the Government had acted unlawfully when Prime Minister Boris Johnson decided not to arrange an independent investigation into the conclusions of the ISC report. The group argued that the lack of action by the government breached the obligations of the Government under Article 3 Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which secure the right to free and fair elections. On this matter, the High Court rejected the claim, citing that none of the applicants’ rights had been shown to be breached in any election or referendum. The judge also ruled that the challenge to the legal framework was a matter of policy on which the High Court could not adjudicate. Permission to appeal the High Court decision was refused as the judge did not consider it arguable that any legal obligation to investigate existed under Article 3 Protocol 1.?

Due to this, representation was made to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) by the parliamentary group, arguing that Article 3 Protocol 1 had been breached by the UK Government through its failure to act in response to the proven threat of Russian electoral interference. In a clear indication of the potential significance of this case, the ECtHR responded to the parliamentarians that this case may be designated as an ‘impact case.’ The ECtHR states that impact cases are those that are of particular importance because they deal with emerging of otherwise significant human rights issues or might lead to a change or clarification of legislation, or which touch upon significant moral or social issues. Any potential ruling on this matter could have widespread consequences across Europe and to a wider audience globally. The ECtHR had accepted that the allegations needed to be the subject of judicial process and the UK Government must be afforded the opportunity to account for their response and actions to the complaints made. As a result of these initial proceedings, the UK Government was required to provide a detailed response to the allegations. The UK Government is required to respond to the ECtHR by 26 April 2023 on the following matters:

1. Do either of the applicants’ complaints (the failure to investigate allegations of interference by Russia in UK democratic elections, and the failure to put in place an effective legal and institutional framework to secure the respondent Government’s obligation to organise free elections) fall within the scope of Article 3 of Protocol 1?
2. Can the positive obligation to organise elections “under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature” be understood as requiring States to have in place a legal and institutional framework to combat external threats to the integrity of their elections?
3. Is there implicit in Article 3 Protocol 1 a duty on States to investigate allegations of interference in their democratic elections? If so, since referendums do not fall within the scope of Article 3 of Protocol 1, was there sufficient evidence of interference by Russia in UK elections to trigger that investigative duty?
4. If the complaints fall within the scope of Article 3 Protocol 1, as MPs can they claim to be victims of the alleged violations, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention?
5. If the applicants do have victim status, do the facts of the case disclose any violation of Article 3 Protocol 1?

This case is not solely about the Brexit referendum result or indeed the Scottish referendum. This case asks the important question that did the UK Government ignore warnings about foreign interference in our political process? It also raises the additional question that did the UK Government, once it was aware of foreign interference in our political process, fail to act and investigate and to fulfil its obligation to voters in the UK under ECtHR Protocol 1, Article 3: Right to free elections? This case is about democracy and national security. There is strong evidence to suggest that Russia interfered in the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence, the 2016 European Union membership referendum and possibly the 2019 general election. It is also widely reported that there was Russian interference in the U.S. election in 2016 and the French election in 2017. The case raises questions about the integrity of democracies across Europe and the wider world, highlighting the duty of countries to protect their democratic election processes against foreign threats of interference and disinformation.

Will the UK Government finally provide some explanation to the questions that were subsequently raised by the findings of the ISC Russia report? Is it true that ministers in effect turned a blind eye to allegations of Russian disruption and interference? Should we believe that the UK Government actively avoided looking for evidence that Russia interfered in our political process? We were told that the Government hadn’t seen any evidence of Russian interference, but that is meaningless if they hadn’t actually looked for it. The ISC also noted that Britain had become a desirable destination for Russian oligarchs and their money. They concluded that some of these oligarchs and their vast wealth had become a corrupting force in British public life through their connections, notably with serving Members of Parliament and Members of the House of Lords. Had these long-term relationships with the UK political establishment become an influencing factor in how robustly they investigated the activities of the Russian state? Protecting our democratic processes from hostile foreign interference is a central responsibility of any government. Current UK legislation enabling action against foreign state actors is no longer fit for purpose and the longer this goes unchallenged, the more likely we are to see continual interference in our democratic processes. Be under no illusions, Russia is not alone in its attempts to destabilise the West through interference in democratic process, this is an ongoing process that successive governments have neglected to address.

No one likes to admit they may have got things wrong — the UK government is no exception. However, the government’s attempts to delay publication of the ISC report and its response in acting on its recommendations have left them wide open to accusations that they are trying to hide something. The question is, are they? How significant is 26 April 2023??You decide.