Free speech challenge to sanctioned pro-Russian propagandist, Graham Phillips, rejected

The court rejected claims made by Graham Phillips, a “mono-British national” who describes himself as a journalist that provides a “counterbalance” to the Western narrative of the war in Ukraine, that he had been designated for “lawful political speech”.

It is the first time that a court in England and Wales has considered the relationship between financial sanctions and freedom of expression.

The High Court accepted the UK government’s case that Phillips had been designated for publishing pro-Russian propaganda – and that UK legislation providing for the imposition of sanctions in respect of Russia permits the designation of people who spread Russian propaganda in support of the war against Ukraine.

When he was designated, Phillips’s UK bank account was frozen and other accounts he used have been frozen too. His entire income stream has, he alleged, dried up – including his ability to make money from videos posted on online platforms – and he is now being pursued for unpaid debts. Phillips has a Russian bank account, into which he receives donations, but he chose not to disclose details of the donations that have been paid into his account, or the source of those donations, to the High Court. Phillips also claims the designation has meant he has been denied time with UK-based family.

The High Court recognised that the designation “significantly interferes” with rights Phillips has under the European Convention on Human Rights – including his right to peaceful possession of his assets, his right to respect for private and family life and his home. However, it considered that the interference with those rights is proportionate to achieve the “legitimate aim of the UK’s national security”.

“[Phillips] decided to set his face against an overwhelming international consensus, to align himself with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, to travel to the frontline, and to help Russia fight its propaganda war,” Mr Justice Johnson, the High Court judge, said. “He has not shown any journalistic responsibility or ethics. His actions directly support Russia in its policies or actions that destabilise Ukraine. There are good reasons to take a firm stand against that conduct so as to pursue the purpose of the 2019 Regulations and seek to encourage Russia to change its course.”

“The sanctions pursue a legitimate aim, are rationally connected to that aim, and there is no other less intrusive measure that could have the same impact. They also strike a fair balance between the claimant’s Convention rights and the legitimate aim that the defendant seeks to pursue. They are therefore proportionate. It follows that the interference with the claimant’s Convention rights is justified, and that the continued designation of the claimant is lawful,” it said.

In reaching its decision, the court considered not only the impact of the designation on Phillips but the role of propaganda in Russia’s war in Ukraine too. It also evaluated both the wording of the UK’s sanctions legislation, as well as parliament’s intention behind it, and the equivalent EU legislation that used to have effect in the UK pre-Brexit.

On this latter point, the court had regard to the previous ruling of the EU’s General Court in the case of Dmitrii Kiselev v Council of the European Union, which had considered that the scope of the EU’s Russian sanctions legislation, developed after Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, could foreseeably be applied to acts constituting large-scale media support for the actions and policies of the Russian government destabilising Ukraine.