[6] Despite some criticisms of their effectiveness, sanctions have become for the United Kingdom, as many countries across the world, a key part of government strategy in pursuing foreign policy goals.
At the time of the Napoleonic Wars at the start of the 19th century, the United Kingdom banned all trade between France, her allies, and the Americas.
[11] With the formation of the United Nations following the Second World War, the deployment of sanctions as a political tool was reintroduced, this time with the USA involved.
[14][15][16][17][18] In the 21st century, UK Government sanctions have targeted individuals or companies in response to high-profile incidents, such as the 2006 murder of Alexander Litvinenko.
[19][20] In 2019, the UK, along with the European Union, imposed sanctions on those suspected to be involved in the 2018 Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal.
The 2018 Act was passed after the UK invoked article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, to begin the process of withdrawal from the EU.
It makes provision to enable sanctions to be imposed where appropriate for purposes that include international peace and security and furthering foreign policy objectives (see the long title to the Act).
[24][25] Abramovich, who has Russian, Israeli and Portuguese citizenship, had his UK assets frozen and a travel ban was put in place.
[29] UK Government sanctions forced Abramovich to sell his football club, Chelsea, which he had owned for 19 years.
[30] In March 2022, then Chancellor Rishi Sunak stated that sanctions on Russia are "are not cost free" for British people and he cannot completely protect them "from difficult times ahead".
Sunak stated: "Sanctions imposed on Russia by the UK and G7 partners are having a clear and progressive impact in downgrading Putin's war effort.
[35][2] The sanctioned entity, or person, can appeal their designation by ministerial review, and if that is unsuccessful, in the High Court of Justice.
In 2023, however the UK Government insisted that the funds, around £2.5 billion, be used for “exclusively humanitarian purposes in Ukraine”, leading to Abramovich's representatives accusing them of changing the terms of the deal, which had not stipulated on the nationality of 'victims of the war'.
“Phi was lawfully detained because she is a high value ship, and her owner was 'connected with' Russia,” said Judge Ross Cranston during a written ruling.
[42] In August 2023, the challenge was rejected by the court, with judge Neil Garnham stating “Whilst the effects of designation are serious, and the claimant and his family have been subjected to enormous inconvenience and no little financial loss, they do not threaten his life or liberty."
[8][48] Alexa Magee, a legal researcher at 'Spotlight on Corruption', stated that the UK Government victory had given it "the green light to pursue sanctions with even greater ambition".
[7] Although Justice Garnham ruled against him in his High Court judgment, the Shvidler case led to a call for an independent review of the UK sanctions regime.
(Spotlight on Corruption) British barrister Marina Wheeler wrote after the Phillips judgment that using sanctions to "slow the spread of disinformation" was "not without risks" and there were situations where "it may be less easy to distinguish between legitimate political dissent – worthy of protection – and illegitimate propaganda.