The UK’s domestic spy agency MI5 issued an alert calling a woman a Chinese agent to allegedly divert attention from a COVID lockdown party scandal involving former prime minister Boris Johnson, according to Reuters.
In January 2022, MI5 issued an alert about lawyer Christine Lee. The agency claimed she was “involved in political interference activities” in the United Kingdom on behalf of the ruling Chinese Communist Party.
The warning was circulated among lawmakers by the Speaker of the House of Commons, who stated MI5 discovered that Lee had “facilitated financial donations to serving and aspiring parliamentarians on behalf of foreign nationals based in Hong Kong and China.”
Lee is now suing MI5 for unspecified damages. She claimed the agency acted unlawfully and unreasonably. At an Investigatory Powers Tribunal hearing on Monday, her lawyer Ramby de Mello read out a message sent to Lee from Barry Gardiner, an MP for the opposition Labour Party. Gardiner claimed he had received hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of donations from her.
He also stated “many people” believed that the timing of the alert was intended to divert attention from Johnson’s admission of an unlawful gathering at Downing Street during the first COVID lockdown. The day before the notice was issued, Johnson had apologised to parliament for attending a “bring your own booze” gathering that had been held at his official residence.
I had never believed that the Security Services would be overtly party political in that way. What has been suggested to me is that the Security Services may have wished to ‘pick a fight’ or to ‘detract attention’ from something else and that we were simply collateral damage.
De Mello stated that MI5 did not have the authority to issue an “unprecedented” notice alleging that Lee had engaged in political interference on behalf of the United Front Work Department of the Chinese Communist Party.
In their written statements, MI5’s lawyers claimed the alert (IA) was announced on national security grounds. It also aimed to protect parliamentary democracy from foreign interference.
The respondent assessed that (Lee) posed a risk of this nature, and its judgment was that the issuing of the IA was the most effective and proportionate means to address that risk. Those assessments were rational and lawful.
The hearing continues on Tuesday.
