NEW: We lost in court today. But this is very far from over.
It is testimony to the seriousness of what’s at stake that it drew a cross-party MPs & Lords of this calibre, a legal team of this brilliance & the support of 2k+ members of British public.
Watch this space
It is testimony to the seriousness of what’s at stake that it drew a cross-party MPs & Lords of this calibre, a legal team of this brilliance & the support of 2k+ members of British public.
Watch this space
To understand the nature of the challenge & the lack of precedent, the judge, Mr Justice Swift queried whether there was any difference between the actions of a hostile foreign state & a radio shock jock. Well yes, m’lud, unless TalkRadio decides to get into the Novichok business
At the heart of this case was an interpretation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights: the right to a free & fair election. But the judge blocked this from even being heard. Our counsel believe that he has erred in law.
Former intelligence minister @BenPBradshaw said the judge’s comments on the role of the security services were ‘astonishing’. The judge claimed for a PM to direct MI5 would be a ‘bold act’ & would require new legislation. Bradshaw says this is ‘a total misapprehension’
James Eadie QC for govt cited lack of case law but Richard Hermer QC for claimants pointed out use of weaponised information is new phenomenon that’s only come to light since 2016. But nobody is going to get to make case law if judges block cases from even being heard: a Catch 22
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
