MI5 acted lawfully in issuing an “Interference Alert” in relation to Chinese political interference

18/12/24

On 13 January 2022, MI5 issued an “Interference Alert” (“IA”) to the Parliamentary Security Director for onward dissemination to Parliamentarians. It named Christine Lee as an “individual knowingly engaged in political interference activities on behalf of the United Front Work Department of the Chinese Communist Party”. It included further details about Ms Lee’s activities, together with her photograph. The IA was circulated to all Parliamentarians, discussed in Parliament and widely reported in the media.

Ms Lee challenged MI5’s decision, in particular on the basis that it was ultra vires, mistaken in fact, in breach of the Tameside duty, procedurally unfair, irrational and in breach of her rights under Articles 3, 8, 10, 11 and 14 of the ECHR.

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (Lord Justice Singh, Lord Boyd of Duncansby and Judge Rupert Jones) has dismissed all of Ms Lee’s claims. It held (in its OPEN judgment) that (i) the vires to issue an IA was implied in s.1(2) of the Security Service Act 1989; (ii) the error of fact ground was ill-founded; (iii) it was not irrational for MI5 to make the inquiries it did; (iv) there was no procedural entitlement for Ms Lee to have been given prior notice, or the opportunity to make representations, or the opportunity to challenge the decision prospectively; (v) the decision was not irrational; (vi) the decision did not meet the threshold for Article 3; (vii) the decision did interfere with Ms Lee’s Article 8 rights, but it was in accordance with law, justified, necessary and proportionate (with the same analysis applying to Articles 10 and 11 if they arose); and (viii) the decision was not discriminatory.