Connect with us

Published

on

Ukraine has fired British-supplied Storm Shadow missiles into Russia, a source has told Sky News.

The UK and Ukraine have not yet confirmed the use of the long-range weapons in Russia but their deployment has been widely reported in British media.

Footage has been posted on Telegram reportedly showing wreckage from one of the missiles in Russia’s Kursk region, which borders Ukraine.

The Storm Shadow cruise missile is on display at the Paris Air Show in, June 2023 Pic: AP
Image:
A Storm Shadow cruise missile on display in June 2023. Pic: AP

Ukraine war: Follow latest updates

The UK had previously said that British tanks, anti-tank missiles and other military equipment could be used inside Russia as part of Ukraine’s defence – but had kept restrictions on the use of long-range missiles.

It comes just days after US President Joe Biden authorised the same policy shift.

Russia’s defence ministry said on Tuesday that Ukraine had fired six US-supplied Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) in the Bryansk region.

A Russian state news agency cited the ministry as saying the missiles caused no casualties.

Missiles will have a ‘marginal effect’

Sky News’ security and defence editor Deborah Haynes says Ukraine’s allies have been pursuing a strategy of ambiguity and “it remains to be seen whether we get official confirmation on this from the UK or from Ukraine”.

“There is also the uncomfortable reality that Ukraine’s stockpile of Storm Shadow missiles is severely limited, so their use will only have a marginal effect.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

From 2023: What are Storm Shadow missiles?

Embassies shut over air attack fears

Meanwhile, Sky’s military analyst Sean Bell says he would be amazed if this attack really marks the first time such a missile has been used by Ukraine to hit inside Russia.

“I would be quite surprised if they haven’t been used for selected targets further on [into Russia] because they are… very, very effective at striking Russian logistics hubs, headquarters, ammunition dumps,” he said.

Earlier, the US and some other Western embassies in Kyiv closed amid fears Russia was preparing a major air attack on the Ukrainian capital.

Read more from Sky News:
Son of Norway’s crown princess in court
Rust premieres three years after fatal shooting
Chinese vessel tracked over Baltic Sea cable fault

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had been asking Kyiv’s allies to give his troops the capability to strike deeper behind Russian lines for over a year.

Mr Biden’s change of policy is linked to changing tactics by the Russians, which began deploying North Korean ground troops to supplement its own forces.

The White House is set to announce more military aid for Ukraine worth up to $275m (£217m), the US defence secretary has said.

Lloyd Austin said the support would “meet critical battlefield needs” and would include munitions for rocket systems, artillery and tank weapons, along with anti-personnel landmines.

Russian politician Maria Butina and the son of Donald Trump, the US president-elect, both warned the move could spark the start of a third world war.

Vladimir Putin lowered the threshold required for the use of nuclear weapons after America’s decision on long-range missiles for Ukraine, adding to fears the conflict could escalate.

Continue Reading

Politics

US appeals time served sentences for HashFlare Ponzi schemers

Published

on

By

US appeals time served sentences for HashFlare Ponzi schemers

US appeals time served sentences for HashFlare Ponzi schemers

Prosecutors appealed the sentences given to HashFlare founders Sergei Potapenko and Ivan Turõgin, after arguing the pair should get 10 years in prison.

Continue Reading

Politics

Nigel Farage has a new ‘leave’ campaign – here’s how it could work and how it might impact you

Published

on

By

Nigel Farage has a new 'leave' campaign - here's how it could work and how it might impact you

Nigel Farage has said he would take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if Reform win the next election.

The party’s leader also reaffirmed his pledge to repeal the Human Rights Act and disapply three other international treaties acting as “roadblocks” to deporting anyone entering the UK illegally.

In a speech about tackling illegal migration, he said a Reform government would detain and deport any migrants arriving illegally, including women and children, and they would “never, ever be allowed to stay”.

Sky News looks at what the ECHR is, how the UK could leave, and what could happen to human rights protections if it does.

What is the ECHR?

On 4 November 1950, the 12 member states of the newly formed Council of Europe (different to the EU) signed the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – otherwise known as the ECHR.

It came into force on 3 September 1953 and has since been signed by an additional 34 Council of Europe members who have joined, bringing the total to 46 signatories.

The treaty was drafted in the aftermath of the Second World War and the Holocaust to protect people from the most serious human rights violations. It was also in response to the growth of Stalinism in central and Eastern Europe to protect members from communist subversion.

The treaty was the first time fundamental human rights were guaranteed in law.

Sir Winston Churchill helped establish the Council of Europe and was a driving force behind the ECHR, which came from the Charter of Human Rights that he championed and was drafted by British lawyers.

Sir Winston Churchill was a driving force behind the ECHR
Image:
Sir Winston Churchill was a driving force behind the ECHR

To be a signatory of the ECHR, a state has to be a member of the Council of Europe – and they must “respect pluralist democracy, the rule of law and human rights”.

There are 18 sections, including the most well-known: Article 1 (the right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to private and family life) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression).

The ECHR has been used to halt the deportation of migrants in 13 out of 29 UK cases since 1980.

ECHR protections are enforced in the UK through the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates most ECHR rights into domestic law. This means individuals can bring cases to UK courts to argue their ECHR rights have been violated, instead of having to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Article 8 is the main section that has been used to stop illegal migrant deportations, but Article 3 has also been successfully used.

Read more:
Why Farage’s small boats plan is not actually about policy
Legal expert explains if Farage deportation plan would work

The ECHR is interpreted by judges at this court in Strasbourg, France. File pic: AP
Image:
The ECHR is interpreted by judges at this court in Strasbourg, France. File pic: AP

How is it actually used?

The ECHR is interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) – you’ll have to bear with us on the confusingly similar acronyms.

The convention is interpreted under the “living instrument doctrine”, meaning it must be considered in the light of present-day conditions.

The number of full-time judges corresponds to the number of ECHR signatories, so there are currently 46 – each nominated by their state for a non-renewable nine-year term. But they are prohibited from having any institutional ties with the state they come from.

An individual, group of individuals, or one or more of the signatory states can lodge an application alleging one of the signatory states has breached their human rights. Anyone who have exhausted their human rights case in UK courts can apply to the ECtHR to have their case heard in Strasbourg.

All ECtHR hearings must be heard in public, unless there are exceptional circumstances to be heard in private, which happens most of the time following written pleadings.

The court may award damages, typically no more than £1,000 plus legal costs, but it lacks enforcement powers, so some states have ignored verdicts and continued practices judged to be human rights violations.

Read more: Asylum seekers in charts and numbers

Inside the European Court of Human Rights. File pic: AP
Image:
Inside the European Court of Human Rights. File pic: AP

How could the UK leave?

A country can leave the convention by formally denouncing it, but it would likely have to also leave the Council of Europe as the two are dependent on each other.

At the international level, a state must formally notify the Council of Europe of its intention to withdraw with six months’ notice, when the UK would still have to implement any ECtHR rulings and abide by ECHR laws.

The UK government would have to seek parliament’s approval before notifying the ECtHR, and would have to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 – which would also require parliamentary approval.

Would the UK leaving breach any other agreements?

Leaving the ECHR would breach the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, a deal between the British and Irish governments on how Northern Ireland should be governed, which could threaten the peace settlement.

It would also put the UK’s relationship with the EU under pressure as the Brexit deal commits both to the ECHR.

The EU has said if the UK leaves the ECHR it would terminate part of the agreement, halting the extradition of criminal suspects from the EU to face trial in the UK.

Keir Starmer has previously ruled out taking Britain out of the ECHR
Image:
Keir Starmer has previously ruled out taking Britain out of the ECHR

How would the UK’s human rights protections change?

Certain rights under the ECHR are also recognised in British common law, but the ECHR has a more extensive protection of human rights.

For example, it was the ECHR that offered redress to victims of the Hillsborough disaster and the victims of “black cab rapist” John Worboys after state investigations failed.

Before cases were taken to the ECtHR and the Human Rights Act came into force, the common law did not prevent teachers from hitting children or protect gay people from being banned from serving in the armed forces.

Repealing the ECHR would also mean people in the UK would no longer be able to take their case to the ECtHR if the UK courts do not remedy a violation of their rights.

The UK’s human rights record would then not be subject to the same scrutiny as it is under the ECHR, where states review each other’s actions.

Two victims of John Worboys sued the Met Police for failing to effectively investigate his crimes using Article 3 of the ECHR. Pic: PA
Image:
Two victims of John Worboys sued the Met Police for failing to effectively investigate his crimes using Article 3 of the ECHR. Pic: PA

How human rights in the UK would be impacted depends partly on what would replace the Human Rights Act.

Mr Farage has said he would introduce a British Bill of Rights, which would apply only to UK citizens and lawful British citizens.

He has said it would not mention “human rights” but would include “the freedom to do everything, unless there’s a law that says you can’t” – which is how common law works.

Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg said this would simply confirm the rights to which people are already entitled, but would also remove rights enjoyed by people visiting the UK.

Continue Reading

Politics

1 in 4 UK adults open to investing in crypto for retirement: Survey

Published

on

By

1 in 4 UK adults open to investing in crypto for retirement: Survey

1 in 4 UK adults open to investing in crypto for retirement: Survey

Over a quarter of Brits said they’d add crypto to their retirement portfolios, while 23% would even withdraw existing pension funds to invest in the space.

Continue Reading

Trending