MI5 Lawyer Tells Tribunal Consequences of Christine Lee’s Actions Were ‘Foreseeable’

Detail of an MI5 Security Service Interference Alert (SSIA) identifying Christine Lee as 'an agent of the Chinese government' operating in the British Parliament, issued by the Office of the Speaker of the House of Commons on Jan. 12, 2022 House of Commons/PA

LONDON—A lawyer representing MI5 told a tribunal it was entirely “foreseeable” for suspected Chinese agent Christine Lee to assume she would come to the attention of British intelligence and her actions be disclosed to the public.

In January 2022, MI5 issued an interference alert against Ms. Lee, a solicitor, warning MPs she was a suspected Chinese agent who had engaged in “political interference activities” on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Her legal team, in their written submissions, said Ms. Lee had travelled to China and Hong Kong for business, met Chinese officials, and made speeches which “criticised the protesters in Hong Kong for using violence.”

But they said she, “did not know at the time, and had no reason to believe” her activities, “could fall foul of national security measures based on unacceptable business or political activities connected with China or UK MPs.”

On Tuesday at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Victoria Wakefield, KC, representing MI5, said, “It was wholly foreseeable that to engage in the conduct she did was liable to bring her to the attention of the Security Service and would lead to them disclosing that activity to the public.”

At this point Ms. Lee fled the courtroom, weeping.

But Ms. Wakefield continued, saying the interference alert or IA was, “proportionate in a democratic society.”

In her written submissions, Ms. Wakefield said MI5 had, “a power to share information (including by issuing an IA) where necessary to mitigate a risk to national security.”

‘Most Effective Means to Address the Threat’

“In the present case, the respondent [MI5] concluded that the interference activities of C1 (Ms. Lee) posed a threat to national security. The issuing of the IA was necessary in circumstances where it was assessed to be the most effective means to address the threat posed by C1,” she added.

Ms. Wakefield said Ms. Lee, “had publicly stated that her activities were to represent the UK Chinese community and increase diversity” but she claimed the activity was, “undertaken in covert coordination with the UFWD, with funding provided by foreign nationals located in China and Hong Kong.”

Ms. Wakefield said even before the IA was issued, information was in the public domain which claimed Ms. Lee was linked to the United Front Work Department (UWFD), an arm of the CCP responsible for gaining political influence in and outside China.

She pointed out she was named in 2020 in the book, Hidden Hand by Clive Hamilton, and in a report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, published in the same year.

Ms. Lee donated at least £500,000 to Mr. Gardiner, who was chairman of the Chinese in Britain All-Party Parliamentary Group, which has since been disbanded.

At the time her son Daniel was working for Mr. Gardiner, a former member of the shadow cabinet under former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, but he later lost his job after losing his parliamentary security clearance.

Barry Gardiner, then shadow secretary for international trade, addresses delegates at the Labour party conference in Liverpool, England, on Sept. 26, 2016. Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

Ms. Lee and her son claim the interference alert was unlawful and interfered with their human rights and have taken their claim to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, an independent judicial body which provides “the right of redress to anyone who believes they have been the victim of unlawful action by a public authority using covert investigative techniques.”

But Ms. Wakefield said the Security Service—which is also known as MI5—had acted within their legal duty to protect national security and had not breached her rights under Article 3 or Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Article 3 states, “no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” and Article 8 protects the right to “privacy and family life.”

On Monday, Ramby de Mello, a barrister representing Ms. Lee and her son, said she had “sustained abuse, threats of death and rape” after the alert was issued and had been forced to go into hiding for a period.

But Ms. Wakefield said the threshold for Article 3 was set quite high and she said while treatment which is “humiliating and debasing” sometimes gets a claimant over the line, she maintained that was not the case with Ms. Lee and Mr. Wilkes.

“Online anonymous abuse from third parties, I'd say, does not constitute the level of humiliating and debasing treatment which gets over the threshold,” she added.

As for Article 3, Ms. Wakefield pointed out the expectation of privacy had limits and she drew an analogy with a rioter who cannot expect the police not to release his photograph to the press in an attempt to identify and arrest him.

Ms. Wakefield also pointed out the-then Home Secretary Sajid Javid signed a certificate in July 2019 which exempted MI5, MI6 and GCHQ from the Data Protection Act and she said that document was expected to be renewed next month.

Mr. de Mello, who says his client is a born-again Christian, has also claimed MI5’s actions amounted to “direct discrimination” because of Ms. Lee’s ethnicity but Ms. Wakefield denied that was the case and produced several legal precedents.

MI5 Accused of ‘Overkill’

Concluding his rebuttal arguments on Tuesday, Mr. de Mello said the interference alert amounted to “overkill” and had, “destroyed the private and professional life of the claimant.”

MI5 has claimed the money Ms. Lee donated was provided by foreign nationals and “undertaken in covert co-ordination” with the CCP.

But her legal team has told the tribunal the donations to Mr. Gardiner came “overwhelmingly” from “profit costs” of her law firm.

Lord Justice Singh, sitting with Lord Boyd and Judge Rupert Jones, said they would reserve judgment until later in the year.