A CROSS-PARTY group of MPs and peers has been refused permission to bring legal action against the Prime Minister for his “failure” to investigate possible Russian interference in UK elections.

However, SNP MP Alyn Smith, a member of the group, has committed to continue to pursue the case into higher courts and across Europe if necessary.

A total of six parliamentarians claimed Boris Johnson unlawfully failed to act following a report by Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), which found the Government was “slow to recognise the existence of the threat” of Russian interference.

The ISC report, published last July, found the Government should have recognised the threat that Russia would seek to influence voters “as early as 2014”, when a referendum on Scottish independence was held.

Following publication of the report, Johnson claimed there was “no country in the western world that is more vigilant in protecting the interests of this country or the international community from Russian interference”.

READ MORE: Scotland needs a disinformation commissioner to tackle fake news, SNP MP says

However, the six MPs and peers – including Smith, Labour MP Chris Bryant, Green MP Caroline Lucas, and former Conservative peer Patience Wheatcroft – argued his decision not to investigate possible Russian interference was unlawful.

The case is believed to be the first time that sitting MPs or peers, who say they will take the case to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary, have taken legal action against the Government on the grounds of national security.

Following a hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in London on Tuesday, Justice Swift refused to give the go-ahead for a full hearing of their case, ruling that it was “unarguable”.

The judge added: “The claimants’ concerns exist at the level of politics, not as a matter of law.”

The claimants’ barrister Richard Hermer QC earlier told the court that publicly available evidence “overwhelmingly supports the proposition that we in this country have been the subject of determined and sophisticated attacks whose very purpose has been to undermine the integrity of our electoral processes”.

“The UK has been and remains one of the top targets for Russian efforts to interfere with the integrity of our elections,” Hermer said.

He added that, despite “strong” evidence of attempted Russian interference in the 2016 EU referendum and the General Elections in 2017 and 2019, the Government has “not shown any concern and not investigated these serious allegations”.

Hermer described the attempted interference as “an attack on our sovereignty by a hostile foreign state”, which had sought to “covertly and falsely and criminally influence the result of elections”.

The risk of foreign interference in elections poses a “real threat to democracy and the rule of law” and – without an effective investigation – “there is an unacceptable risk of repetition”, Hermer told the court.

The six claimants, supported by campaign group The Citizens, argued the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) places a legal obligation on the Government to “investigate hostile state interference in the democratic process”.

Sir James Eadie QC, representing Johnson, argued that the ECHR “imposes no duty to order an independent investigation into Russian interference in the UK’s electoral processes”.

Sir James added: “There are serious principled objections to a legal duty upon the state to investigate supposed interferences with an election which are not said to have altered its outcome.

“It risks engaging state bodies in an exercise likely to be perceived as serving politically partisan ends, whether that is an outgoing Government casting doubt on the legitimacy of an election it has lost or an incoming Government seeking to defend the legitimacy of its election victory.”

Commenting on the judgment, Smith said: “This was not unexpected and where I obviously respect the judgment we have decided to appeal it to a higher Court which should be able to look at the issue in the wider public policy context.

READ MORE: SNP MP backs global call for Biden and Putin to not use nukes first

“Having last beat the UK Government in court in Luxembourg, when we dragged them kicking and screaming through the domestic courts to get there, I remain firm in my view that today’s narrow judgment did not answer the questions the Russia Report raises. It was a wake up call for a UK Government that remains unable or unwilling to ventilate this issue seriously.”

Speaking outside court after the ruling, Labour MP Ben Bradshaw, one of the claimants in the case, said the High Court’s decision “basically leaves our democracy defenceless against a hostile foreign power”.

Bradshaw told the PA news agency: “I still think we have a very strong case and we will have to see what happens next.”

A Cabinet Office spokeswoman said: “Safeguarding our democracy will always be an absolute priority and the UK has robust systems in place to protect our elections from interference.

“We will also always ensure our security services and law enforcement have the powers they need to tackle future threats and the evolving tactics carried out by states and actors.”