Key Facts
- •Graham Phillips, a British journalist, was sanctioned by the UK government under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 and the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
- •Phillips' designation stemmed from his reporting on the Donbas region of Ukraine, which the government deemed to be pro-Russian propaganda supporting actions that destabilize Ukraine.
- •Phillips' sanctions included asset freezing, impacting his income and ability to travel.
- •Phillips challenged the legality of the sanctions, arguing they infringed his right to free speech and other Convention rights under the ECHR.
- •The High Court considered whether the legislation permitted sanctions in response to free speech and whether Phillips' designation was proportionate.
Legal Principles
Free speech is a fundamental common law right, but this right is not absolute and can be subject to limitations in the interests of national security.
Common law and ECHR Article 10
The legality principle requires that any interference with Convention rights must be prescribed by law, accessible, foreseeable, and contain sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness.
ECHR and Human Rights Act 1998
Proportionality test for interference with Convention rights involves considering whether the objective is sufficiently important, the measure is rationally connected, less intrusive measures could have been used, and a fair balance is struck between the measure's effects and the objective's importance.
Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 39
Parliament can override common law rights, including free speech, but only through clear and unambiguous language.
Parliamentary Supremacy
Outcomes
The court refused Phillips' application to set aside the decision to maintain his designation.
The court found that the 2018 Act and 2019 Regulations permitted the imposition of sanctions in response to free speech in certain circumstances, particularly where it constitutes propaganda supporting actions that undermine a country's sovereignty. The court held that Phillips' activities constituted such propaganda and that his designation was proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting national security.