Ex-MPs take case against UK Government’s failure to investigate foreign interference to European ‘Supreme Court’

Three former MPs claim the UK Government is failing in its duty to protect elections from foreign interference, in a new case lodged today with the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights.

The filing by former MPs Caroline Lucas, Alyn Smith and Ben Bradshaw calls for “clear, positive duties to investigate and safeguard foreign influence”.

The Grand Chamber is the equivalent of the ECHR’s ‘Supreme Court’ and only hears cases of “exceptional importance or complexity”.

The claim is the final stage of a five-year legal battle that was first launched in 2020 and comes after former MEP Nathan Gill pled guilty to taking bribes in return for making pro-Russian statements in the European Parliament.

Pleading guilty meant that further evidence that could have revealed more wrongdoing will now not be exposed in open court.

National security 

Supported by not-for-profit, The Citizens, and represented by Leigh Day, the crowdfunded case was the first time a group of sitting MPs had sued the government over matters of national security.

Even though all three MPs have now left parliament, they have persevered with the claim and are now appealing to Europe’s top human rights court.

The claims asks the court to confirm, “a clear, enforceable duty on the UK to investigate credible foreign interference in elections and to adopt proactive safeguards” pursuant to Article 3 of Protocol 1 to the European convention on Human Rights – the right to free and fair elections.

The group first challenged the government in the UK High Court after parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee published a report citing “credible evidence” of Russian interference.

The then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, refused the demands of MPs on the committee to launch an inquiry.

Among those who provided evidence and urged action was Lord Peter Ricketts, the UK’s first ever national security advisor.

‘Surprised’

He said he was “very surprised” the government had not sought evidence over Russian interference in the Brexit vote, and said he “did not understand why the government would choose not to investigate.”

When that claim failed, the group took the claim to the European Court of Human Rights in 2022.

That case was fast tracked through the court after being classified as a case of “significance” with relevance to other member states.

On July 22, 2025, the court ruled on the case of Bradshaw and Others v United Kingdom but after having sought independent counsel, the group decided to challenge the decision.

The Referral Request to the Grand Chamber lodged on Wednesday (October 22) lays out what, “States must do when faced with hostile interference in their electoral processes… These issues go to the core of rights protected by the Convention: the maintenance of a free and democratic society in which the people are able freely to choose their leaders and representatives”.

Obligation

The judgement recognises for the first time that, “European states have a positive obligation to safeguard citizens from disinformation and covert influence by foreign powers”.

While that judgment established a critical principle, it stopped short of requiring the UK to hold a full public inquiry into Russian interference.

The Grand Chamber referral seeks guidance that turns that principle into practical, reviewable duties – including investigation and prevention – for foreign interference from any state.

A five-judge panel of the Grand Chamber reviews the request. If the panel accepts the referral, the case is transferred to the 17-judge Grand Chamber.

If the original Chamber judgment is set aside, fresh written submissions and potentially a new hearing may take place.

The Grand Chamber then issues a final judgment, which cannot be appealed.

Tom Short, Senior Associate at Leigh Day said: “Our clients remain steadfast in their message that foreign interference in UK democratic processes must be properly investigated and the UK Government must act to protect citizens’ right to free and fair elections.

“This landmark case and appeal to the Grand Chamber is made against the backdrop of the government refusing to act on its own findings through the Intelligence and Security Committee that Russia has already interfered in our democratic processes. The threat of foreign interference is real and, as the recent Nathan Gill case shows, is growing.”

‘Hostile’

Former leader of the Green Party who served as an MEP, Caroline Lucas, said: “This case goes to the heart of how governments’ discharge their responsibility to protect our electoral processes from hostile interference, and it raises hugely important issues of principle when it comes to developing Convention case law.

“The maintenance of a free and democratic society where people can freely choose their leaders and representatives are core rights protected by the Convention – but unless governments are required to act on them, they remain theoretical.

“By requesting this referral to the Grand Chamber, we are doing all we can to ensure that the Convention’s guarantees are practical and effective. At a time of deepening geopolitical insecurity,  clarification in these matters could not be more urgent.”

Ben Bradshaw, a former Labour MP who served as Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, said: “As evidence continues to mount over the extent of Putin’s hybrid war against western democracies over many years, it is imperative that the  British people can be confident in the resilience of our democratic processes.”

Former Scottish National Party MP, Alyn Smith, said: “We started this case when it was clear to anyone that the UK government had not found much evidence of interference because they had not been looking, yet as more comes to light our case only grows stronger.

“The appeal to the Grand Chamber will allow them to look at the wider implications, and up to date evidence, that our democracy has not been sufficiently defended.”

Clara Maguire, The Citizens, said: “We helped initiate this legal action because back in 2020 Boris Johnson’s government first suppressed the Russia Report, and then refused to act on its findings.

“We know that Russia has targeted and is continuing to target UK politics and elections, including via social media, that’s what the judgement concluded, yet the UK government is still refusing to take the necessary steps to protect our democracy.

“That’s why we’re persisting. The European court has acknowledged the threat but we’re still in the dark because of the government’s refusal to investigate and our legal team believe that right is enshrined in European law and that’s why we’re fighting on what is a hugely significant legal challenge at a crucial moment.”