View Potential Foreign Interference flipbook.
Potential Foreign Interference, State-Threat Activity and Compromise of UK Public Institutions Re: Formal notification and request for assessment of alleged foreign-directed surveillance, coercion, political interference and potential compromise of UK public institutions 1. Purpose and status of this notification I submit this document as a formal notification of matters which, if substantiated, may engage UK criminal law, national-security legislation, foreign-interference provisions and the integrity and security of UK public institutions. I expressly distinguish between: • matters personally observed or documented; • matters reported to me or otherwise alleged; • matters for which corroborating evidence may exist; and • matters which require independent investigation and verification. Nothing in this notification is intended to assert as established fact any allegation that has not yet been independently verified. The purpose of this notification is to ensure that the matters are properly recorded, preserved, risk- assessed and referred to the competent authorities, including where appropriate authorities responsible for national security, counter-foreign-interference activity, serious organised crime, surveillance oversight and criminal investigation.
2. Nature of the alleged conduct The allegations concern an alleged coordinated and sustained campaign of surveillance, stalking, harassment, coercion, intimidation, isolation and interference directed against an individual residing lawfully in the United Kingdom. The alleged activity is said to have continued for approximately two years and two months. The reported conduct includes, subject to verification: • persistent surveillance and monitoring; • suspected electronic or technological surveillance; • suspected unauthorised access to communications devices; • suspected interception or monitoring through device microphones or other equipment; • stalking and harassment; • interference with the individual's private and political life; • attempts to socially isolate and discredit the individual; • conduct allegedly intended to undermine or erode the individual's sense of identity; • coercive and intimidating conduct; • alleged sexual coercion; • alleged prolonged deprivation of liberty or confinement; • alleged physical or psychological abuse; and • interference with the individual's ability to access or effectively use public services and institutional mechanisms. The allegations should be investigated individually and cumulatively. The existence of a prolonged and coordinated pattern, if established, may be materially different from a series of unrelated incidents.
3. Potential foreign-state and intelligence dimension A further concern is the alleged involvement, direction, support or knowledge of foreign governments, foreign intelligence services or persons acting on behalf of foreign powers. The alleged foreign connections include references to the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Israel and other governmental or intelligence interests. I do not ask the receiving authority to treat those alleged connections as established. I request that the competent authority determine, through appropriate intelligence and evidential processes: 1. whether a foreign power was involved; 2. whether a foreign intelligence service was involved; 3. whether the activity was directed, encouraged, financed or materially supported from abroad; 4. whether UK-based individuals acted as intermediaries or proxies; 5. whether information concerning the individual was obtained or exchanged with foreign actors; 6. whether any UK public official knowingly facilitated such activity; and 7. whether the alleged activity falls within the statutory framework governing foreign interference or state threats. The National Security Act 2023 contains specific offences concerning foreign interference and assistance to a foreign intelligence service, subject to the statutory elements of those offences.
4. Potential foreign interference Particular consideration should be given to whether the alleged conduct constitutes, or forms part of, foreign interference within the meaning of the National Security Act 2023. The relevant question is not simply whether a foreign government was interested in the individual. The question is whether a foreign power, directly or through intermediaries, engaged in conduct satisfying the statutory requirements for foreign interference, including any relevant interference with protected rights, public functions or access to services. The investigation should therefore identify: Foreign power → conduct attributable to foreign power → UK intermediary/proxy → intended interference → actual interference/effect → individual or public institution. Where evidence does not establish each statutory element, the allegation should not be characterised as a proven offence. It should nevertheless be retained as a potential intelligence or investigative lead.
5. Potential compromise of UK public institutions A distinct and potentially more serious concern arises from allegations that UK public officials or civilian personnel may have knowingly permitted, facilitated or otherwise enabled foreign-linked actors to maintain access to UK institutional processes or personnel. If substantiated, this would raise questions concerning the: integrity, independence and security of UK public institutions. The issue is not merely whether an official failed to act upon a complaint. The relevant question is whether any official: • knowingly permitted continued access to an alleged foreign-linked actor; • knowingly provided information or assistance; • knowingly facilitated contact between foreign-linked actors and UK personnel; • interfered with legitimate safeguarding or investigative processes; • deliberately disregarded information indicating serious criminal conduct; • manipulated or suppressed institutional processes; or • otherwise abused or wilfully neglected a public duty. Where such conduct is established, consideration may need to be given to misconduct in public office and any applicable secondary or participatory criminal liability. The CPS describes misconduct in public office as requiring a high threshold involving wilful misconduct or wilful neglect of duty amounting to an abuse of the public's trust. (cps.gov.uk)
6. International political activity The individual remains internationally politically active. That fact is relevant to the security assessment because it raises the possibility that the alleged conduct may have had objectives extending beyond interference with the individual's private life. The authorities should therefore consider whether the alleged surveillance or coercive activity was intended or used to: • obtain political intelligence; • identify political associates and international contacts; • monitor political activity; • intimidate or deter political expression; • interfere with political association; • undermine the individual's credibility; • disrupt international political activity; • deter third parties from communicating with the individual; or • otherwise suppress or constrain lawful political activity. Political activity itself is not evidence of criminality or national-security risk. The relevant issue is whether a foreign power or its proxies sought to interfere with that lawful activity.
7. Alleged surveillance and communications interception It is alleged that the individual's communications devices may have been subject to covert monitoring, including possible access to microphones or other technical capabilities. The individual reports that they did not knowingly establish direct communication with any alleged monitors. This allegation requires technical verification. In particular, the competent authority should establish, where technically possible: • whether unauthorised access occurred; • the method by which access was allegedly obtained; • whether communications were intercepted; • whether audio was recorded; • whether data was transmitted elsewhere; • the identity of any recipient; • whether the activity was attributable to a state, intelligence service, organisation or private actor; • whether any interception or equipment interference was authorised; • what statutory power was relied upon; and • whether the relevant legal safeguards were complied with. The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 provides the statutory framework for interception and equipment interference by relevant public authorities and contains associated safeguards and offences. (legislation.gov.uk) Accordingly, the allegation should not be treated either as proven surveillance or as inherently impossible without appropriate technical examination.
8. Potential offences against the individual If the underlying factual allegations are substantiated, consideration should be given independently to applicable offences concerning: • stalking; • harassment; • unlawful interception or surveillance; • coercive conduct; • deprivation of liberty; • assault or serious violence; • sexual offences; • unlawful disclosure or acquisition of personal information; • conspiracy; • encouraging or assisting offending; and • other offences identified by investigators. The existence of a foreign-state dimension would not displace the ordinary criminal law applicable to conduct against the individual. Conversely, the existence of ordinary criminal offences would not exclude the possibility that the same conduct forms part of a wider foreign-interference or state-threat operation.
9. Dual national-security and individual harm The allegations should therefore be assessed on two legally distinct but potentially interconnected levels. A. Offences and harm directed against the individual surveillance → stalking → harassment → coercion → isolation → psychological/physical harm → interference with private and political life. B. Potential harm to the United Kingdom foreign direction → UK-based intermediary activity → exploitation of public institutions → interference with protected rights/public functions → institutional compromise → foreign influence within UK territory. The second category requires evidence establishing the necessary statutory and factual connection. However, where such evidence exists, the matter cannot appropriately be characterised solely as a private dispute.
10. Potential institutional-security breach If a foreign power or foreign intelligence service was able to use UK-based individuals to conduct a sustained hostile operation against a person in the United Kingdom, the competent authorities should consider whether this demonstrates: • a foreign-interference vulnerability; • exploitation of UK personnel; • inappropriate access to public institutions; • compromise of institutional safeguards; • misuse of public authority; • intelligence-collection activity conducted within UK territory; • failure of counter-foreign-interference controls; or • deliberate facilitation by persons holding public office. The central national-security question is: Whether a foreign actor has been able to project coercive or intelligence activity into the United Kingdom through UK-based intermediaries and, if so, whether any UK public institution or official knowingly enabled, tolerated, concealed or facilitated that activity.
11. Evidential questions requiring determination I respectfully request that the following matters be specifically investigated: Attribution • Who conducted the alleged surveillance? • Who organised or coordinated the alleged activity? • Is there evidence of a foreign-state connection? Direction • Was any UK-based individual instructed, encouraged or tasked by a foreign actor? • Were instructions transmitted directly or through intermediaries? Technical activity • Were devices compromised? • Was interception or equipment interference undertaken? • Was information collected, retained or transmitted? Institutional involvement • Which UK officials were aware? • When did they become aware? • What information did they possess? • What statutory duties applied to them? • What decisions did they make following notification? Facilitation • Did any official provide information, access, introductions, resources or protection? • Did anyone interfere with an investigation or complaint process? Continuity • Was the alleged activity coordinated over the reported two-year-and-two-month period? • Were there repeated opportunities for intervention? • Did the conduct continue following official notification? Purpose • Was the individual targeted because of political activity, nationality, opposition to a foreign government or another protected characteristic/activity? • Was intelligence collection or political suppression an objective?
12. Requested classification and referral Given the potential combination of foreign-state involvement, alleged intelligence activity, sustained targeting of an internationally politically active person, alleged exploitation of UK-based intermediaries and possible involvement of UK public officials, I respectfully request that this notification be assessed for: Potential foreign interference / state-threat activity / compromise of UK institutional integrity and security. If the receiving authority lacks jurisdiction, I request that the information be referred to the competent authority rather than closed solely on jurisdictional grounds, subject to applicable confidentiality and information-sharing requirements. I further request that relevant evidence, records, communications, logs and other potentially material information be preserved where legally appropriate.
13. Evidential and legal qualification This notification is made in good faith as a request for investigation and national-security assessment. It does not ask the receiving authority to make a finding of criminal liability without evidence. The appropriate distinction should be maintained between: allegation → intelligence lead → corroborated evidence → investigative finding → charging decision → judicial determination. I recognise that national-security and criminal investigations require appropriate evidential thresholds and lawful authorisation. The central request is therefore that the allegations be properly recorded, risk-assessed and independently investigated, particularly where they potentially concern foreign interference, foreign intelligence activity or the compromise of UK public institutions. 14. Closing statement If substantiated, the matters described would extend beyond harm to an individual and could raise a potentially grave question concerning the integrity, independence and security of UK public institutions. The central issue requiring determination is whether a foreign power or foreign- directed network has conducted or facilitated a sustained hostile operation against an individual within the United Kingdom, whether UK-based intermediaries or public officials participated in or enabled that operation, and whether UK institutional processes or public functions were knowingly exploited in furtherance of it. I therefore respectfully request that the matter be treated as a potential national-security and state-threat issue, with appropriate consideration given to foreign interference, assistance to foreign intelligence services, misuse of public office, and any underlying criminal offences against the individual, subject to the evidence and applicable law.
Dual national-security and individual harm: alleged use of UK-based proxies The alleged conduct should be assessed simultaneously at two interconnected levels: the harm allegedly inflicted upon the individual and the potential harm to the United Kingdom arising from the alleged use of UK-based intermediaries or proxies in furtherance of foreign-directed activity. 1. Harm to the individual The alleged operation is reported to involve a sustained pattern of surveillance, stalking, harassment, coercion, intimidation, isolation and interference with the individual's private, professional and political life. If substantiated, the conduct may constitute separate criminal offences against the individual, irrespective of any foreign-state involvement. The relevant question is whether the individual was subjected to a coordinated course of conduct, rather than isolated or unrelated incidents. 2. Alleged use of UK-based proxies A separate national-security issue arises if evidence establishes that persons located or operating within the United Kingdom acted as intermediaries, agents or proxies for a foreign power or foreign intelligence service. For the purposes of investigation, the alleged structure should be considered as: Foreign actor / foreign power ↓ Direction, tasking, encouragement or material support ↓ UK-based intermediary / alleged proxy ↓ Access to UK individuals, institutions or services ↓ Hostile or coercive activity against the individual ↓ Political, intelligence or strategic objective This alleged proxy relationship requires independent verification. The fact that a UK-based person has contact with a foreign government or foreign national does not, by itself, establish that they are acting as a proxy. 3. Why the proxy element changes the national-security assessment If UK-based persons were knowingly acting on behalf of a foreign power, the alleged operation would potentially involve more than conduct occurring against an individual within the UK. It could indicate that a foreign actor was attempting to project its influence or coercive capability into UK territory through domestic intermediaries. The investigation should therefore determine whether the alleged proxies: • received instructions or tasking from a foreign actor; • knowingly acted at the direction of a foreign power;
• received information, funding, resources or other assistance; • obtained information about the individual; • passed information to foreign actors; • used UK institutional or professional relationships; • facilitated surveillance, harassment or coercive conduct; • obtained access to public-sector personnel or institutions; or • assisted in preventing effective investigation or intervention. 4. Potential institutional compromise The national-security concern becomes materially more serious if the alleged proxies were able to exploit legitimate UK institutions or relationships. For example: Foreign actor → UK proxy → access to civilian/public-sector personnel → information or influence → targeting of individual If officials subsequently became aware of the alleged relationship and deliberately permitted it to continue, the issue would potentially extend to the integrity and security of the institution itself. The question would become: Was a UK public institution or public function being exploited as an operational channel for foreign-directed activity? That is distinct from merely asking whether an individual official failed to respond appropriately to a complaint. 5. Political and national-security consequences The individual remains internationally politically active. If the alleged proxy activity was intended to monitor, intimidate, isolate, discredit or otherwise interfere with that lawful activity, the potential consequences could extend beyond the individual. They could include: • interference with political expression and association; • intelligence collection concerning political contacts; • deterrence of international political activity; • intimidation of persons associating with the individual; • exploitation of UK-based networks; • erosion of confidence in UK institutions; and • foreign-state coercive influence being exercised within UK jurisdiction. The National Security Act 2023 provides a statutory framework concerning foreign interference and assistance to foreign intelligence services, subject to the specific elements of the relevant offences.
6. Dual impact Accordingly, the alleged conduct should be assessed as potentially having both an individual and a national-security impact: Individual level: Alleged surveillance, stalking, coercion, harassment, isolation and other criminal conduct. Proxy level: Alleged use of UK-based intermediaries to conduct or facilitate the activity. Institutional level: Potential exploitation or compromise of UK personnel, public functions or institutions. National-security level: Potential foreign interference, intelligence activity, coercive influence and erosion of UK sovereignty or institutional integrity. Formal wording for the notification Dual National-Security and Individual Harm — Alleged Use of UK-Based Proxies The allegations should be assessed not solely as conduct directed against an individual, but also for their potential national-security implications arising from the alleged use of UK-based intermediaries or proxies in furtherance of foreign-directed activity. If substantiated, the alleged conduct would involve two interconnected dimensions. At the individual level, the person is alleged to have been subjected to a prolonged and coordinated campaign of surveillance, stalking, harassment, coercion, intimidation and interference with their private and political life. At the national-security level, the alleged involvement of UK-based proxies raises the question whether a foreign power or foreign intelligence service has sought to project coercive or intelligence activity into the United Kingdom through domestic intermediaries. Particular consideration should therefore be given to whether any UK-based persons were acting pursuant to foreign direction, tasking, encouragement or material support; whether they obtained or transmitted information concerning the individual; whether they exploited UK institutional or professional relationships; and whether any UK public officials knowingly facilitated, tolerated or concealed such activity. If evidence establishes such a relationship, the matter may represent more than criminal conduct against an individual. It may indicate the potential exploitation of UK-based persons, public functions or institutions as channels for foreign-directed hostile activity, thereby engaging wider concerns regarding foreign interference, state threats, institutional integrity and the security of the United Kingdom.
Formal letter: request for counter-terrorism and national-security assessment Private and Confidential Subject: Formal notification and request for assessment — potential terrorism, foreign interference and state-threat dimensions Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to formally notify the competent authorities of circumstances which, if substantiated, may warrant assessment under the United Kingdom's counter-terrorism and national-security frameworks. I respectfully request that the matters described below be assessed as potential terrorism and foreign-interference concerns in addition to any ordinary criminal offences that may arise, rather than being considered solely as a conventional stalking or harassment matter. I expressly recognise that the allegations require independent verification and that this letter is not presented as a finding of fact or a determination of criminal liability. 1. Summary of the concern The information available concerns an alleged coordinated and sustained campaign directed against an individual residing in the United Kingdom, involving alleged surveillance, stalking, harassment, coercion, intimidation, isolation and other serious conduct over approximately two years and two months. The individual remains internationally politically active. It is alleged that the targeting may have been connected to the individual's political activity and may involve foreign-state or intelligence interests, together with the alleged use of UK-based intermediaries or proxies. The allegations include, subject to independent verification: • sustained surveillance and stalking; • suspected technological or electronic surveillance; • suspected covert monitoring of communications devices; • coercive and intimidating conduct; • alleged attempts to isolate and socially discredit the individual; • alleged conduct intended to undermine the individual's identity and autonomy; • alleged sexual coercion; • alleged prolonged deprivation of liberty/confinement; • alleged serious psychological and physical abuse; and • interference with the individual's political and international activities.
2. Potential terrorism dimension I respectfully request an assessment against section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The statutory definition requires specified forms of action or threat, together with the requisite purpose concerning influencing government or an international governmental organisation, or intimidating the public or a section of the public, and a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. The specified conduct includes serious violence, endangering life, serious risk to public health or safety, and serious interference with electronic systems. Crown Prosecution Service+1 On the information presently available, I do not consider that terrorism can be stated as an established legal conclusion. However, I consider that there is sufficient potential significance to justify a counter-terrorism threshold assessment, particularly because the allegations combine: • alleged serious physical and psychological abuse; • alleged prolonged coercion and deprivation of liberty; • alleged technological interference; • an explicitly political context; • an internationally politically active target; • alleged coordination between multiple actors; • alleged foreign-state involvement; and • alleged use of UK-based proxies. 3. Political purpose and possible intimidation A central issue for determination is whether the alleged conduct was motivated by, or undertaken in furtherance of, a political or ideological objective. The relevant question is not simply whether the individual is politically active. It is whether evidence demonstrates that the individual was targeted because of that activity, and whether the alleged conduct was intended to: • suppress or disrupt lawful political activity; • influence government; • obtain political or intelligence information; • deter political association; • intimidate other political activists or dissidents; or • otherwise advance a political or ideological objective. Of particular importance is whether the alleged conduct was intended to intimidate persons beyond the individual, including a relevant political, dissident or activist community.
This distinction is material because the statutory terrorism definition refers to intimidation of the public or a section of the public, rather than simply causing fear or distress to an individual. Crown Prosecution Service 4. Alleged foreign direction and UK-based proxies A separate and potentially significant national-security concern is the allegation that UK-based persons may have acted as intermediaries or proxies for foreign actors. The relationship requiring investigation can be expressed as: Foreign actor / foreign power ↓ Direction, tasking, encouragement or material support ↓ UK-based intermediary or proxy ↓ Targeting of individual within the UK ↓ Political, intelligence or coercive objective I do not suggest that a person should be characterised as a proxy merely because they have contact with a foreign national, government or organisation. The relevant question is whether evidence establishes direction, tasking, intentional assistance, material support or another legally relevant relationship. This is particularly important because the National Security Act 2023 contains a specific foreign- interference regime. Section 13 provides for foreign-interference offences, including circumstances where a person participates in a course of conduct while another person carries out the prohibited conduct. The statutory interference effects include interference with Convention rights, public functions and certain political processes, as well as prejudice to the safety or interests of the UK. Legislation.gov.uk The Act also creates an offence concerning assistance to a foreign intelligence service. Legislation.gov.uk 5. Potential compromise of UK institutions The allegations additionally raise a question of whether UK public institutions, officials or public functions may have been exploited or compromised. The matter requiring determination is whether UK personnel merely failed to respond adequately to allegations, or whether any person: • knowingly facilitated foreign-directed activity; • provided access or information; • maintained relationships with alleged foreign-linked proxies despite knowledge of their activities; • deliberately obstructed or frustrated legitimate investigation; • abused a public position; or
• knowingly permitted UK institutional mechanisms to be used in furtherance of the alleged operation. If established, this would potentially transform the issue from one concerning only an individual victim into a matter concerning institutional integrity and national security. The National Security Act's explanatory material expressly identifies foreign interference, espionage, cyber operations and other hostile activity by foreign states as threats to UK national security, democracy and the safety and interests of the UK. Legislation.gov.uk 6. International political activity The individual's continuing international political activity is relevant to the assessment because it creates a potential wider objective beyond interference with private life. If evidence establishes that the alleged operation was intended to monitor, suppress, intimidate or disrupt that activity, the potential effects could include: Targeting of individual → disruption of political activity → intimidation of associates → deterrence of wider political participation. The investigation should therefore examine whether the individual's political contacts, international relationships, communications or political activities were objectives of the alleged surveillance or coercive conduct. 7. Technical surveillance allegations The individual reports suspected covert monitoring of communications devices. I request that this allegation be treated as a matter requiring technical verification, rather than being presumed either true or false. Relevant questions include: • whether any device was compromised; • whether microphone or other equipment access occurred; • whether communications were intercepted or recorded; • whether information was transmitted to another person or organisation; • whether any recipient can be identified; • whether the activity was attributable to a foreign actor or UK intermediary; and • whether any such activity was lawfully authorised. If serious electronic interference is established, its relevance to the terrorism assessment should be considered alongside the ordinary criminal and national-security frameworks.
8. Overall preliminary assessment Having considered the information provided, my preliminary assessment is: Counter-terrorism referral/assessment: warranted for consideration. Terrorism legally established: No — the available information is insufficient to make that determination. Potential terrorism dimension: Yes. The principal unresolved issues are whether: 1. the alleged serious conduct actually occurred; 2. the conduct satisfies one of the serious-action categories within section 1; 3. there was a political, religious, racial or ideological purpose; 4. the purpose included influencing government or intimidating the public or a section of the public; and 5. the alleged conduct can be attributed to an organised or directed operation. The CPS guidance confirms that cases with a terrorist element, even where other legislation may apply, should be referred to the Counter Terrorism Division. Crown Prosecution Service 9. Parallel national-security assessment Irrespective of whether the terrorism threshold is ultimately satisfied, I respectfully request that the matter also be assessed under the National Security Act 2023 and the wider state-threat framework. In particular, consideration should be given to whether the alleged facts disclose: foreign interference; assistance to a foreign intelligence service; use of UK-based proxies; interference with Convention rights or public functions; interference with political activity; or prejudice to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. The foreign-interference provisions expressly contemplate situations where one person participates in a course of conduct while another person carries out the prohibited conduct. Legislation.gov.uk 10. Request for action I respectfully request that the competent authority: 1. record this notification formally; 2. conduct an appropriate counter-terrorism threshold assessment; 3. assess the matter for foreign-interference and state-threat indicators; 4. investigate the alleged use of UK-based proxies or intermediaries; 5. assess any potential involvement of foreign intelligence services; 6. examine whether UK public officials or institutions were knowingly exploited, compromised or used;
7. preserve relevant intelligence and evidence where appropriate; 8. undertake or commission appropriate technical examination of the alleged digital surveillance; and 9. refer the matter to the appropriate specialist authority where it falls outside the receiving body's jurisdiction. 11. Final qualification I recognise the importance of maintaining a strict distinction between allegation, intelligence, corroborated evidence, investigative finding, charging decision and judicial determination. Accordingly, I am not asking the authorities to adopt the allegations as established facts. I am asking that the possibility of a coordinated politically motivated operation, potentially involving foreign actors and UK-based proxies, be properly assessed against the counter-terrorism and national-security frameworks. If substantiated, the alleged combination of serious criminal conduct, political targeting, foreign direction, proxy activity and possible exploitation of UK public institutions could represent a matter of significantly greater national-security importance than an isolated case of stalking or harassment. Yours faithfully,
1. UK legal assessment matrix Dimension Alleged conduct requiring investigation Potential legal framework Who/what is principally harmed Preliminary assessment Against the individual Sustained stalking/monitoring Protection from Harassment Act 1997; stalking provisions Individual Potentially serious criminal offending if the course of conduct is established. Stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm/distress can carry a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment. L Legislation.gov.uk+1 Against the individual Threats, intimidation and coercion Criminal offences depending on precise conduct Individual Requires identification of the specific acts and evidence of the required mental element Against the individual Alleged serious physical violence/torture Offences against the person, potentially including serious assault Individual Potentially extremely serious; precise offence depends upon the evidence Against the individual Alleged sexual coercion Sexual Offences Act 2003 and related law, depending on conduct Individual Potentially serious criminal offending if the statutory elements are established Against the individual Alleged confinement/depriva tion of liberty False imprisonment/kidnap ping and related Individual Potentially very serious; duration and method of
Dimension Alleged conduct requiring investigation Potential legal framework Who/what is principally harmed Preliminary assessment offences, depending on circumstances confinement would be material Against the individual Suspected unauthorised interception/device surveillance Investigatory Powers Act 2016 and other applicable legislation Individual / communications security Requires technical evidence and determination of whether interception/equip ment interference occurred and whether authorised Against the individual Deliberate social isolation/reputationa l targeting Harassment/stalking and potentially other offences depending on conduct Individual Potentially relevant as part of a course of conduct rather than necessarily a standalone offence Against the individual Interference with political activity Potential Convention- rights/foreign- interference implications depending on attribution and purpose Individual / democratic participation Particularly significant if foreign direction is established Against the individual + UK Targeting individual because of political activity Terrorism Act 2000 / National Security Act 2023, depending on evidence Individual + democratic system Potential national- security dimension, but statutory elements must be established Against UK public institution s Alleged use of UK officials/civilian personnel as intermediaries National Security Act 2023; potentially other criminal law UK institutions / individual Potentially significant if direction, knowledge or material assistance can be proved Against UK public institution s Officials knowingly facilitating foreign- directed activity National Security Act 2023; potentially misconduct in public office or other offences depending on facts Public institution / public trust Requires evidence of the official's knowledge, duty, conduct and intent
Dimension Alleged conduct requiring investigation Potential legal framework Who/what is principally harmed Preliminary assessment Against UK public institution s Deliberate obstruction/suppress ion of complaints or investigations Potential criminal/public-law consequences depending on conduct Justice system / institution / individual Requires precise evidence of what was done and why Against UK national security UK-based person knowingly materially assisting a foreign intelligence service National Security Act 2023, s.3 UK national security Particularly relevant if the person intended, or knew/ought reasonably to know, that their conduct was likely to materially assist a foreign intelligence service. The Act expressly includes provision of information, services, goods or financial benefits. L Legislation.gov.uk+1 Against UK national security Foreign-directed interference with individual's rights/public functions National Security Act 2023, ss.13–15 Individual + UK institutions Potentially highly relevant if the foreign-power condition and statutory interference requirements are established. Foreign interference carries a maximum penalty of 14 years. L
Dimension Alleged conduct requiring investigation Potential legal framework Who/what is principally harmed Preliminary assessment Legislation.gov.uk Against UK national security Foreign power using UK proxies to conduct hostile activity National Security Act 2023 UK sovereignty/security Potentially serious state-threat issue; requires evidence connecting the proxy to the foreign power Against UK national security Foreign-directed cyber/electronic activity causing serious damage National Security Act 2023 sabotage provisions UK infrastructure/securi ty Relevant if the conduct meets the statutory sabotage requirements. The Act specifically covers state-linked sabotage involving electronic systems and cyber-attacks. L Legislation.gov.uk Against UK national security Intelligence collection for a foreign service National Security Act 2023, including assisting a foreign intelligence service UK national security Potentially applicable depending upon what information was obtained, for whom and with what knowledge/intent
Dimension Alleged conduct requiring investigation Potential legal framework Who/what is principally harmed Preliminary assessment Against UK democrati c processes Foreign-directed interference with political participation or public functions National Security Act 2023 foreign- interference regime Democratic/instituti onal system Potentially significant where statutory interference effects are demonstrated. L Legislation.gov.uk Potential terrorism Alleged serious violence/threats undertaken for political or ideological purposes Terrorism Act 2000, s.1 Individual + public/national security Requires much more than stalking or political motivation alone Potential terrorism Conduct intended to influence government or intimidate the public/section of public Terrorism Act 2000 Government/public + individual Potentially relevant if evidence establishes the statutory purpose Organised offending Multiple actors allegedly coordinating over approximately 2 years 2 months Conspiracy, secondary liability, Serious Crime Act provisions and substantive offences depending on evidence Individual + potentially UK Coordination and common purpose would need to be evidenced Internatio nal dimension Alleged foreign government/intellige nce involvement National Security Act 2023 / other applicable legislation UK + individual Foreign involvement does not automatically make conduct terrorism; attribution and statutory elements are critical 2. The key distinction 3. The matrix can be reduced to three principal legal questions:
Against the person Against UK institutions Against the UK/state Was the individual stalked, coerced, assaulted, confined, sexually coerced or unlawfully surveilled? Were UK officials or institutions knowingly exploited, compromised or used? Was a foreign power directing or materially supporting activity prejudicial to UK security, democratic processes or protected rights? Primary focus: victim and criminal harm Primary focus: integrity of public functions Primary focus: sovereignty, security and state threats Ordinary criminal law may apply Public-office/institutional and national-security law may apply National Security Act / terrorism framework may apply 4. Where the alleged “proxy” conduct is particularly important 5. The strongest national-security formulation is not simply: 6. “Foreign people were involved.” 7. It is: 8. Foreign power/intelligence service → direction or material assistance → UK-based intermediary/proxy → conduct within UK → interference with individual/public functions → political or strategic objective. 9. That distinction matters because section 3 of the National Security Act 2023 specifically criminalises conduct intended to materially assist a foreign intelligence service, and also conduct that is likely to materially assist one where the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, that it is likely to do so. L Legislation.gov.uk+1 10. The foreign-interference provisions similarly contemplate a course of conduct, so the fact that different people perform different parts of an alleged operation does not necessarily prevent the conduct from being assessed collectively. L Legislation.gov.uk 11. Terrorism should remain a separate column 12. I would not collapse foreign interference into terrorism.
13. For terrorism, the authorities would need to establish the specific statutory ingredients: qualifying serious conduct/threats, the relevant political/religious/racial/ideological purpose, and the required objective of influencing government or intimidating the public or a section of the public. C Crown Prosecution Service 14. Therefore, your submission could appropriately state: 15. The alleged conduct potentially engages three distinct but overlapping legal dimensions: (1) serious criminal offences against the individual; (2) potential offences or misconduct involving the exploitation or compromise of UK public institutions; and (3) potential national-security offences arising from foreign direction, foreign interference or assistance to a foreign intelligence service. A separate counter-terrorism assessment is requested to determine whether any part of the conduct additionally satisfies the statutory definition of terrorism. 16. That is legally stronger than describing everything as “terrorism,” because it allows investigators to pursue the ordinary criminal, institutional, foreign-interference and terrorism dimensions simultaneously, according to the evidence. 17. L C Sources 18. You said: Country vs person matrix - summarising all - detailed — potential offences and maximum pen 19. ChatGPT said: Below is a UK-focused “country vs person” matrix. Because the facts you describe are allegations rather than established findings, the offences are best presented as potential offences for investigation, not conclusions of guilt. Maximum penalties are statutory maxima; actual sentences depend heavily on the facts, charge, jurisdiction and sentencing guidelines. Country vs person — consolidated legal matrix Dimension Alleged conduct / factual issue Potential UK offence or legal framework Principal protected interest Maximum penalty / consequence PERSON Sustained stalking over ~2 years 2 months Protection from Harassment Act 1997, s.2A / s.4A Individual's safety, autonomy and freedom from stalking Ordinary stalking: up to 6 months; stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm/distress: up to 10
Dimension Alleged conduct / factual issue Potential UK offence or legal framework Principal protected interest Maximum penalty / consequence years L Legislation.gov.uk+1 PERSON Harassment forming a prolonged course of conduct Protection from Harassment Act 1997 Individual Depending on offence, penalties range substantially; aggravated forms can be considerably higher PERSON Threats intended to cause fear of violence Protection from Harassment Act 1997, s.4 / related offences Personal safety Serious s.4 offence: up to 10 years L Legislation.gov.uk PERSON Serious physical violence Offences Against the Person Act 1861 / modern offences depending on conduct Life and bodily integrity Depending on offence, potentially life imprisonment PERSON Alleged torture or extremely serious violence Serious offences against the person; potentially terrorism if statutory requirements are met Life, bodily integrity Potentially life imprisonment, depending on charge PERSON Alleged unlawful confinement for prolonged period False imprisonment / kidnapping Liberty False imprisonment and kidnapping can carry life
Dimension Alleged conduct / factual issue Potential UK offence or legal framework Principal protected interest Maximum penalty / consequence imprisonment in appropriate cases PERSON Alleged sexual coercion Sexual Offences Act 2003 / related offences Sexual autonomy and bodily integrity Depends on precise offence; serious sexual offences can carry life imprisonment PERSON Suspected unlawful interception of communications Investigatory Powers Act 2016 / other applicable law Privacy and communications security Penalty depends on precise offence and circumstances PERSON Suspected unauthorised device/equipment interference Investigatory Powers Act 2016 / Computer Misuse Act 1990, depending on conduct Privacy, property and information security Depends on offence and circumstances PERSON Unauthorised access to computer/device Computer Misuse Act 1990 Digital security/property Penalty depends upon offence; serious unauthorised acts can attract substantial imprisonment PERSON Deliberate reputational/social targeting as part of stalking Harassment/stalk ing law; potentially defamation/civil claims depending on conduct Reputation, dignity and private life Criminal penalty depends on underlying conduct PERSON Interference with political activity Potential Convention- rights interference; potentially foreign- interference offence if foreign-power condition is satisfied Political expression/associa tion Potentially up to 14 years for statutory foreign- interference offence L Legislation.gov.uk
Dimension Alleged conduct / factual issue Potential UK offence or legal framework Principal protected interest Maximum penalty / consequence PERSON + STATE Foreign-directed interference with individual's Convention rights National Security Act 2023, ss.13– 15 Individual rights + UK security Foreign interference: up to 14 years L Legislation.gov.uk PERSON + STATE Foreign-directed interference affecting use of public services National Security Act 2023 foreign- interference provisions Individual + integrity of public functions Up to 14 years where statutory elements are met L Legislation.gov.uk PERSON + STATE UK-based proxy acting for foreign intelligence service National Security Act 2023, s.3 UK national security Up to 14 years or fine/both L Legislation.gov.uk PERSON + STATE UK person providing surveillance, information, services, equipment or other assistance to a foreign intelligence service National Security Act 2023, s.3 UK security + potentially individual Up to 14 years or fine/both; official explanatory material expressly identifies surveillance and personal information as possible examples of material assistance L
Dimension Alleged conduct / factual issue Potential UK offence or legal framework Principal protected interest Maximum penalty / consequence Legislation.gov.uk STATE Foreign-directed damage to UK assets/electronic systems National Security Act 2023, s.12 — sabotage UK security/infrastruct ure Life imprisonment or fine/both L Legislation.gov.uk STATE Foreign-directed serious cyber/electronic damage National Security Act 2023 sabotage provisions UK infrastructure and national security Potentially life imprisonment if statutory sabotage offence established L Legislation.gov.uk STATE Foreign interference with public functions National Security Act 2023, ss.13– 15 Integrity of UK government/public functions Up to 14 years L Legislation.gov.uk
Dimension Alleged conduct / factual issue Potential UK offence or legal framework Principal protected interest Maximum penalty / consequence STATE Foreign interference with a person's Convention rights National Security Act 2023, ss.13– 15 Individual rights + UK resilience against foreign interference Up to 14 years L Legislation.gov.uk STATE Foreign-directed activity prejudicial to UK safety/interests National Security Act 2023 National security Penalty depends upon underlying offence; several Part 1 offences carry 14 years or life STATE Obtaining/disclosin g protected information for a foreign power National Security Act 2023 / espionage provisions State secrets/national security Certain offences: up to 14 years; some offences have higher maxima depending on provision L Legislation.gov.uk STATE Assisting a foreign intelligence service National Security Act 2023, s.3 UK national security Up to 14 years L Legislation.gov.uk STATE Receiving/retaining material benefit from foreign intelligence service National Security Act 2023, s.17 National security Relevant offence: up to 14 years; agreeing to accept such benefit: up to 10 years LLegislation.gov.uk+1
Dimension Alleged conduct / factual issue Potential UK offence or legal framework Principal protected interest Maximum penalty / consequence STATE Foreign-directed preparatory conduct National Security Act 2023 Prevention of state-threat activity Certain preparatory offences can carry life imprisonment LLegislation.g ov.uk DEMOCRA CY / STATE Foreign-directed interference with political processes/election s National Security Act 2023 + electoral legislation Democratic integrity Penalty depends on underlying electoral offence and statutory foreign-power conditions PUBLIC INSTITUTI ON Official knowingly facilitates foreign- directed activity Potential National Security Act offence; potentially misconduct in public office depending on facts Public trust + institutional integrity Depends on precise offence; misconduct in public office has no single statutory maximum and sentencing depends on circumstances PUBLIC INSTITUTI ON Official deliberately abuses/neglects public office to facilitate serious wrongdoing Misconduct in public office, where legal elements are satisfied Public trust Common-law offence; penalty determined by sentencing court JUSTICE SYSTEM Deliberate obstruction of investigation/evide nce Perverting the course of justice / related offences Administration of justice Potentially life imprisonment for the common-law offence, depending on conduct and circumstances PERSON + STATE Serious politically motivated violence intended to influence government or intimidate a section of the public Terrorism Act 2000, s.1 + applicable substantive offence Individual + public + national security Terrorism offences can carry life imprisonment, depending on the specific offence STATE / PUBLIC Serious violence undertaken for political/ideologica l purpose Terrorism Act 2000 Public/national security Potentially life imprisonment, depending on offence
Dimension Alleged conduct / factual issue Potential UK offence or legal framework Principal protected interest Maximum penalty / consequence STATE / PUBLIC Serious interference with electronic systems for terrorism purposes Terrorism Act 2000 framework Public/national security Potentially very severe penalties, depending on offence ORGANISE D CRIME Multiple people coordinating a common criminal purpose Conspiracy / secondary participation / substantive offences Individual + potentially state No single maximum; maximum follows the substantive offence in many cases ORGANISE D CRIME + STATE Organised UK- based network acting at direction of foreign actor National Security Act + ordinary criminal law Individual + UK national security Potentially cumulative/alternative charges; maximum depends on offences proved The three levels of harm The matrix can be expressed more simply as follows: 1. “Against the person” This concerns the alleged direct victimisation: stalking → harassment → surveillance → coercion → sexual coercion → violence → confinement → psychological/physical harm → interference with political/private life The principal legal interests are life, bodily integrity, liberty, sexual autonomy, privacy, dignity and freedom from harassment. The fact that the alleged conduct lasted approximately two years and two months could be highly relevant to seriousness and sentencing, although duration itself does not create a separate offence. 2. “Against UK institutions” This concerns the alleged exploitation of the UK's own systems: foreign actor → UK proxy/intermediary → access to civilian/public officials → institutional influence → interference with individual/public functions The protected interests become public trust, lawful administration, institutional independence and integrity of public functions. If an official merely made an error or failed to appreciate the seriousness of a complaint, that is very different legally from an allegation that an official knowingly and deliberately facilitated foreign- directed criminal activity. That distinction should be made explicit in any complaint.
3. “Against the country” This concerns conduct directed at UK national security itself: foreign power → direction/tasking/material support → UK-based operation → interference/sabotage/intelligence activity → prejudice to UK safety, interests, sovereignty or democratic institutions The National Security Act 2023 specifically created offences addressing foreign intelligence assistance, sabotage and foreign interference. The official explanatory material states that section 3 can encompass providing information, services, goods or financial benefits that materially assist a foreign intelligence service, including surveillance-related assistance. LLegislation.gov.uk+1 Where the same conduct can fall into both columns This is the important part for your submission. For example: A UK-based proxy allegedly surveils an individual on behalf of a foreign intelligence service. That could potentially be: Against the person o stalking; o harassment; o unlawful surveillance/interception; o privacy interference. Against the country o assisting a foreign intelligence service; o foreign interference; o potentially other state-threat offences. If the purpose was additionally to suppress political activity: Against democracy o potential interference with political participation; o potentially terrorism, if all statutory terrorism elements are established. So it is not necessarily: Person OR country It can be: Person + public institution + democratic system + national security at the same time. Highest-level potential penalties
For the particular national-security theories you've described, the most significant statutory maxima include: o Stalking involving fear of violence / serious alarm or distress: up to 10 years. LLegislation.gov.uk+1 o Assisting a foreign intelligence service: up to 14 years. LLegislation.gov.uk o Foreign interference: up to 14 years. LLegislation.gov.uk o Obtaining/accepting certain material benefits from a foreign intelligence service: up to 14 years; agreement to accept such a benefit can carry up to 10 years. LLegislation.gov.uk o State-linked sabotage under the National Security Act: life imprisonment or a fine/both. LLegislation.gov.uk o Certain preparatory state-threat offences: potentially life imprisonment. LLegislation.gov.uk o Serious terrorism offences: potentially life imprisonment, depending on the particular offence and statutory elements. Important: a maximum sentence is not a prediction of the sentence that would actually be imposed. It is the statutory ceiling. Courts consider the precise offence, culpability, harm, evidence, aggravating/mitigating factors and sentencing guidelines. Suggested legal conclusion for the document The alleged conduct should not be characterised exclusively as either offences against an individual or offences against the United Kingdom. Depending upon the evidence, the same course of conduct may simultaneously constitute criminal offending against the individual, interference with protected rights or public functions, exploitation of UK institutions, and conduct falling within the national-security framework concerning foreign interference or assistance to a foreign intelligence service. Where evidence establishes that UK-based persons knowingly acted as intermediaries or proxies for a foreign intelligence service or foreign power, the national-security dimension becomes materially distinct from the underlying offences against the individual. Where the alleged conduct additionally involved a political or ideological purpose and the statutory requirements concerning influence upon government or intimidation of the public or a section of the public are satisfied, a separate counter-terrorism assessment may be warranted. Accordingly, the appropriate investigative approach is not “country versus person”, but an assessment of the potential harm at each level: individual victimisation; institutional compromise; democratic interference; foreign intelligence activity; and national security. LSources 20. You said: The three levels of harm detailed table 21. ChatGPT said:
Three levels of harm — detailed UK assessment matrix The cleanest way to present this is to distinguish (1) harm to the individual, (2) compromise of UK institutions/democratic processes, and (3) harm to UK national security/state interests. The same conduct can potentially sit in more than one level. The table below is an investigative/legal classification, not a finding that any offence occurred. Level Alleged conduct / issue Potential legal characterisation What must generally be established Principal harm Potential maximum / consequence 1 — PERSO N Prolonged stalking and monitoring Stalking under Protection from Harassment Act 1997 Course of conduct amounting to stalking; required knowledge/me ntal element Safety, autonomy, private life Basic stalking: up to 6 months; stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm/distress: up to 10 years. LLegislation.gov.u k+1 1 — PERSO N Following, watching, spying, monitoring electronic communicatio ns Stalking Evidence connecting the conduct to the perpetrator and satisfying statutory requirements Privacy, freedom of movement, psychological security Potentially within the stalking offences; monitoring internet/electronic communications and watching/spying are expressly identified examples of stalking behaviour. LLegislation.g ov.uk 1 — PERSO N Repeated intimidation or threats of violence Harassment/stalkin g involving fear of violence Repeated conduct + requisite knowledge + fear of violence Physical safety Potentially up to 10 years under the serious stalking/harassment provisions. LLegislation.g ov.uk 1 — PERSO N Conduct causing serious alarm or distress Stalking involving serious alarm/distress Serious alarm/distress attributable to course of conduct + statutory requirements Mental health, autonomy and security Potentially up to 10 years. LLegislation.gov.u k 1 — PERSO N Alleged physical violence Assault / serious offence against the person Particular act, injury and required intent Life and bodily integrity Varies substantially; the most serious offences can carry life imprisonment
Level Alleged conduct / issue Potential legal characterisation What must generally be established Principal harm Potential maximum / consequence 1 — PERSO N Alleged torture or extreme physical abuse Potential serious offences against the person; potentially terrorism if statutory test satisfied Evidence of acts, perpetrators, intent and circumstances Life, bodily integrity, dignity Potentially life imprisonment, depending on offence 1 — PERSO N Alleged prolonged confinement False imprisonment / kidnapping, depending on facts Unlawful restriction of liberty and identity of perpetrator Liberty Serious offences can carry life imprisonment 1 — PERSO N Alleged sexual coercion Sexual offence(s), depending on precise conduct Absence of legally valid consent and required mental element Sexual autonomy and bodily integrity Depends on offence; serious sexual offences can carry life imprisonment 1 — PERSO N Alleged technological surveillance Possible interception/equip ment interference/comp uter offences Technical evidence + identification + absence/prese nce of lawful authority Privacy, communicati ons and digital security Depends on precise offence 1 — PERSO N Alleged manipulation of reputation/soci al relationships Harassment/stalkin g and potentially other offences Evidence of deliberate conduct and its relationship to the wider course of conduct Reputation, social participation Depends on underlying offence 1 — PERSO N Attempts to undermine identity/auton omy through prolonged coercive conduct Potentially evidence relevant to stalking, harassment, coercive behaviour or other offences Specific acts and causal connection Psychological integrity and autonomy Depends on underlying offence
Level Alleged conduct / issue Potential legal characterisation What must generally be established Principal harm Potential maximum / consequence 1 — PERSO N Interference with lawful political activity Potential human- rights / criminal / foreign- interference dimension Evidence that conduct actually interfered with protected activity and satisfies relevant statutory test Political expression and association Potentially overlaps with Level 2/3 Level 2 — UK institutions and democratic system Level Alleged conduct / issue Potential legal characterisati on What must generally be established Principal harm Potential maximum / consequence 2 — INSTITUTIO NS Foreign-linked actors allegedly using UK civilians as intermediaries Potential foreign interference Foreign-power condition + prohibited conduct + statutory interference effect Institutional integrity + individual rights Foreign interference offence: up to 14 years. Legislation.gov.u k 2 — INSTITUTIO NS Foreign- directed coercion of a person to affect their exercise of rights National Security Act 2023 foreign- interference framework Foreign-power condition + prohibited conduct + interference effect Convention rights + UK institutional integrity Up to 14 years for the general foreign- interference offence. LLegislation.go v.uk 2 — INSTITUTIO NS Foreign- directed interference with public functions National Security Act 2023 Conduct intended/reckl ess to produce statutory interference effect Public administrati on Up to 14 years. Legislation.gov.u k 2 — INSTITUTIO NS Foreign- directed interference with access to public services National Security Act 2023 Statutory foreign-power and interference requirements Public services + individual Up to 14 years. Legislation.gov.u k
Level Alleged conduct / issue Potential legal characterisati on What must generally be established Principal harm Potential maximum / consequence 2 — INSTITUTIO NS Foreign- directed activity affecting political processes National Security Act 2023 / relevant electoral law Relevant political process + foreign-power condition + statutory offence Democratic integrity Depends on specific offence 2 — INSTITUTIO NS UK officials knowingly assisting foreign-directed activity Potential National Security Act offence / other criminal offence Knowledge, conduct, assistance and applicable statutory elements Public trust + national security Depends on precise offence; assistance to a foreign intelligence service can carry up to 14 years 2 — INSTITUTIO NS Officials deliberately allowing public functions to be exploited Potential criminal/publi c-law consequences Specific duty, knowledge, conduct and intent must be demonstrated Institutional integrity Depends on offence 2 — INSTITUTIO NS Deliberate obstruction of legitimate investigation Potential perverting the course of justice / related offence Intentional acts tending and intended to pervert justice Administrati on of justice Common-law offence potentially carries life imprisonment 2 — DEMOCRAC Y Targeting politically active individual to suppress political participation Potential foreign interference / terrorism assessment Political purpose and statutory elements must be established Democratic participation Foreign interference potentially up to 14 years; terrorism depends on section 1 test 2 — DEMOCRAC Y Attempt to deter other activists/disside nts through targeting of one person Potential terrorism relevance Evidence of wider intimidation objective Political community / public Terrorism only if all statutory requirements are satisfied The National Security Act is particularly important here because its definition of an “interference effect” expressly includes interfering with a person's Convention rights, affecting public functions,
affecting use of public services and prejudicing the safety or interests of the UK. Legislation.gov.uk+1 It also defines prohibited conduct broadly enough to include criminal conduct, coercion and certain deliberate misrepresentations. Legislation.gov.uk Level 3 — UK national security / state threat Level Alleged conduct / issue Potential legal characterisa tion What must generally be established Principal harm Potential maximum / consequence 3 — NATION AL SECURIT Y UK person knowingly provides assistance to a foreign intelligence service National Security Act 2023, s.3 Material assistance + foreign intelligence service + required knowledge/in tent UK national security Up to 14 years, fine or both 3 — NATION AL SECURIT Y Providing information, surveillance, services, equipment or financial assistance to foreign intelligence service Potential s.3 assistance offence Nature of assistance + foreign intelligence connection + mental element UK security + potentially targeted person Up to 14 years 3 — NATION AL SECURIT Y Foreign power directs UK-based proxy to interfere with a person's rights Foreign interference Foreign- power condition + prohibited conduct + interference effect Individual + UK security Up to 14 years 3 — NATION AL SECURIT Y Foreign power uses UK proxy to interfere with public functions Foreign interference Same statutory requirements UK government/p ublic administration Up to 14 years
Level Alleged conduct / issue Potential legal characterisa tion What must generally be established Principal harm Potential maximum / consequence 3 — NATION AL SECURIT Y Foreign-directed conduct prejudices UK safety/interests Foreign interference Statutory interference effect + foreign- power condition UK national security Up to 14 years 3 — NATION AL SECURIT Y State-linked sabotage of UK infrastructure/elec tronic systems National Security Act sabotage offence Statutory sabotage requirements + foreign- power connection Critical infrastructure / UK security Potentially life imprisonment. Legislatio n.gov.uk 3 — NATION AL SECURIT Y Foreign intelligence collection through UK intermediaries Espionage / assistance framework Protected information or qualifying assistance + foreign- power connection UK intelligence/se curity Depends on precise offence; some offences carry substantial imprisonment 3 — NATION AL SECURIT Y Foreign-directed operation designed to compromise UK institutions Foreign interference / other state-threat offences Foreign direction + prohibited conduct + interference effect Sovereignty + institutional integrity Potentially up to 14 years, depending on offence 3 — NATION AL SECURIT Y Coordinated foreign-directed operation against politically active UK resident Foreign interference + potentially terrorism Attribution, direction, purpose and statutory elements Individual + democratic system + UK security Potentially multiple overlapping offences 3 — NATION AL SECURIT Y / TERRORI SM Serious violence undertaken for political/ideologica l purpose to influence government or intimidate Terrorism Act 2000 All section 1 terrorism elements Public + democratic government + national security Serious terrorism offences can carry life imprisonment, depending on offence
Level Alleged conduct / issue Potential legal characterisa tion What must generally be established Principal harm Potential maximum / consequence public/section of public 3 — NATION AL SECURIT Y / TERRORI SM Serious qualifying electronic interference undertaken for terrorism purposes Terrorism Act framework Statutory qualifying conduct + terrorism purpose Public/electron ic infrastructure + national security Depends on specific terrorism offence The terrorism threshold is narrower than simply “foreign-directed political persecution.” Section 1 requires specified action or threat, designed to influence government or intimidate the public/a section of the public, and made for advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. Legislation.gov.uk How the three levels connect The important analytical point is that the levels can form one chain of harm: Level 1 — individual Surveillance → stalking → coercion → intimidation → alleged violence/confinement → psychological and physical harm Protected interests: life + liberty + bodily integrity + privacy + autonomy + political expression ↓ Level 2 — institution UK-based intermediary/proxy → access to public personnel/services → alleged interference with the individual's rights or political participation Protected interests: public administration + institutional integrity + democratic participation + public trust ↓ Level 3 — country Foreign direction/support → UK-based operation → interference with rights/public functions → prejudice to UK safety or interests Protected interests:
national security + sovereignty + democratic resilience + security of public institutions The particularly important overlap The National Security Act 2023 makes the distinction between “victim” and “country” less rigid than it might initially appear. For example, suppose—purely hypothetically—that a foreign power directed a UK-based person to coerce a politically active individual. The same conduct could potentially be: Against the person: harassment/stalking/coercion → harm to the individual's rights and safety. Against the institution: interference with the individual's exercise of rights or use of public services → compromise of public functions. Against the country: foreign power uses prohibited conduct to produce an interference effect prejudicing UK interests → potential foreign-interference offence. Section 14 specifically recognises interference with a person's Convention rights and prejudice to the safety or interests of the UK as possible interference effects. Legislation.gov.uk That is why a suspected foreign-directed operation against one individual can potentially become a national-security matter without the individual themselves being a government official. Overall assessment framework For the allegations you have described, I would therefore present the hierarchy as: Question Assessment Was an individual potentially subjected to serious criminal conduct? Potentially yes — requires investigation and evidence. Could the same conduct interfere with protected rights? Yes, potentially. Could UK public institutions have been exploited? Potentially, if the alleged proxy/institutional relationships are evidenced.
Question Assessment Could foreign-directed conduct constitute foreign interference? Potentially yes; the National Security Act specifically covers interference with Convention rights, public functions and UK safety/interests. Legislation.gov.uk Could it constitute assistance to a foreign intelligence service? Potentially, if the required foreign-intelligence connection, material assistance and mental element are established. Could it constitute terrorism? Potentially, but only if the considerably more specific section 1 terrorism requirements are established. Legislation.gov.uk Does foreign involvement automatically make it terrorism? No. Does harm to one individual automatically mean harm to the country? No — but foreign-directed interference can create a separate national-security offence even where the immediate target is one person. Can one course of conduct produce all three levels of harm? Yes, potentially. Formal formulation The appropriate assessment is therefore not limited to whether the alleged conduct constitutes offences “against the person” or “against the country”. The relevant question is whether the same alleged course of conduct produced harm at three interconnected levels: (1) direct criminal harm to the individual; (2) interference with the integrity of UK public institutions and democratic participation; and (3) foreign-directed activity prejudicial to the security or interests of the United Kingdom. Where evidence establishes a foreign-power connection, the National Security Act 2023 provides a distinct framework for assessing conduct that might otherwise appear to be solely a private criminal matter. Where the additional statutory requirements for terrorism are established, a fourth, overlapping counter-terrorism dimension may arise. Legislation.gov.uk+1 One important jurisdiction point: because you're in Scotland, the exact offence labels, procedure and sentencing rules can differ from England and Wales. The National Security Act and terrorism framework are UK-wide in important respects, but ordinary offences such as harassment, assault and sexual offences need to be mapped to Scottish law if the alleged conduct occurred in Scotland. The matrix above therefore shouldn't be treated as a charging schedule without jurisdiction-specific review.
Yes. Given the allegations you have described, I would structure the risk assessment as a three-level threat assessment, while keeping a strict distinction between alleged facts, intelligence indicators, and established evidence. The UK Government currently treats espionage, foreign interference, sabotage, cyber operations, assassination and related activity as forms of state threat, and its 2026 guidance specifically recognises the risk posed by foreign states and proxies operating in the UK. G GOV.UK+1 Integrated three-level threat and risk assessment Risk scale Rating Meaning Low Limited identifiable harm; little evidence of capability, intent or persistence Moderate Credible concern requiring monitoring/investigation High Credible and significant threat requiring active investigation/protective measures Very High Serious threat involving significant capability, persistence, escalation potential or institutional compromise Critical Threat potentially capable of causing catastrophic or nationally significant harm Important: the ratings below assess the potential risk if the allegations are substantiated, not whether the allegations have been proved. Level 1 — Threats to the individual Threat Alleged activity Potential impact Persisten ce Escalati on potenti al Preliminary risk Persistent stalking Continuous surveillance/monitoring over ~2 years 2 months Severe loss of privacy, autonomy and psychological security Very high High Very High
Threat Alleged activity Potential impact Persisten ce Escalati on potenti al Preliminary risk Covert surveillance Alleged monitoring of communications/devices Loss of communication s security; exposure of private information Very high High Very High Physical safety Alleged threats/violence/torture Serious injury or death Potentiall y continuin g Very high Critical if substantiat ed Confinement Alleged prolonged restriction of liberty Loss of freedom and severe psychological harm Extremel y high High Critical if substantiat ed Sexual coercion Alleged coercive sexual conduct Severe bodily and psychological harm High High Very High Psychological coercion Alleged continuous intimidation/control Trauma, loss of autonomy, deterioration in ability to function Very high High Very High Identity erosion Alleged prolonged attempts to undermine identity, confidence and autonomy Psychological destabilisation and loss of independence Very high High High/Very High Social isolation Alleged smears, harassment and interference with relationships Loss of support network and increased vulnerability Very high High High/Very High Political intimidation Alleged targeting connected with political activity Suppression of lawful expression/acti vity Very high High Very High
Threat Alleged activity Potential impact Persisten ce Escalati on potenti al Preliminary risk Professional/econ omic interference Alleged interference with employment/services/opport unities Financial and professional damage High High High Digital compromise Alleged unauthorised access/interference Exposure of communication s, contacts and activities High Very high Very High Information exploitation Alleged collection of pattern- of-life information Enables further intimidation or physical targeting High Very high Very High Retaliation for reporting Possible retaliation following complaints/reporting Discourages disclosure and increases vulnerability High High High The Home Office's current security guidance specifically identifies foreign-state collection of dissidents' patterns of life, associates and vulnerabilities as information that can facilitate intimidation and serious physical threats. G GOV.UK Level 2 — Threats to UK institutions and democratic processes Threat Alleged mechanism Potential consequence National significance Preliminary risk Use of UK-based proxies Foreign-linked actors allegedly using UK civilians/intermediaries Foreign operation gains domestic reach Very high Very High Institutional exploitation Alleged use of public- sector relationships/functions Public institutions become operational channels Very high Very High
Threat Alleged mechanism Potential consequence National significance Preliminary risk Official facilitation Officials allegedly knowingly permitting or assisting activity Compromise of public functions Very high Very High if evidenced Institutional capture/infiltration Alleged sustained access through civilian/public- sector networks Loss of institutional independence Critical Critical if substantiated Suppression of complaints Alleged failure to investigate or deliberate dismissal/neglect Prevents detection and allows operation to continue High High/Very High Manipulation of public services Alleged interference with services available to target Rights and public functions compromised High High/Very High Political interference Alleged targeting of politically active individual Chilling effect on political participation Very high Very High Intimidation of wider political community Targeting one activist potentially intended to deter others Democratic participation weakened Very high Very High Foreign influence over officials Alleged foreign instructions reaching UK personnel Sovereignty/institutional independence affected Critical Critical if substantiated Compromise of information Alleged access to public- sector information Foreign actor gains intelligence advantage Very high Very High Corruption of decision-making Alleged external influence over decisions affecting target Public functions cease to operate impartially Very high Very High Erosion of public confidence Perception that foreign actors can manipulate UK institutions Loss of trust in government and law enforcement Very high High/Very High
The Government describes foreign interference as activity intended to undermine UK interests, institutions, political systems or rights, and specifically identifies manipulation of political discourse and threats against political dissidents as state-threat concerns. G GOV.UK+1 Level 3 — Threats to the United Kingdom / national security Threat Alleged mechanism Potential national- security consequence Escalatio n potential Preliminary risk Foreign intelligence operation in UK Foreign intelligence allegedly directing activity through UK-based actors Sovereignty and counter-intelligence failure Very high Critical if substantiate d Foreign interference Foreign power allegedly influencing conduct inside UK Democratic/institution al interference Very high Very High Proxy activity Domestic actors allegedly performing tasks for foreign interests Foreign power acquires deniable UK capability Very high Very High Assistance to foreign intelligence service UK persons allegedly provide information/services/acces s Foreign intelligence capability strengthened Very high Very High/Critical Political repression / transnational repression Foreign power allegedly targeting dissident in UK UK becomes theatre for foreign coercion Very high Very High Intelligence collection Alleged collection of personal/political information Foreign actor obtains strategic intelligence High Very High Cyber/electronic operations Alleged covert compromise of devices Intelligence collection or operational access Very high Very High Institutional penetration Alleged access to UK officials/institutions Foreign power obtains influence/access Critical Critical if substantiate d
Threat Alleged mechanism Potential national- security consequence Escalatio n potential Preliminary risk Foreign-directed intimidation Serious coercion against UK-based political dissident Chilling effect on democratic freedoms Very high Very High Serious violence Alleged violence/torture against target Potential escalation to severe injury/death Critical Critical if substantiate d Assassination risk If credible evidence of lethal targeting exists Loss of life + major diplomatic/national- security consequences Extreme Critical Sabotage Foreign-directed damage to UK infrastructure/systems Disruption of essential services/security Critical Critical if substantiate d Wider foreign interference network Multiple proxies/organisations allegedly coordinated Persistent hostile capability inside UK Critical Critical if substantiate d Compromise of democratic sovereignty Foreign power allegedly suppresses political activity through covert means Democratic resilience weakened Critical Very High/Critical Retaliation/escalatio n Operation intensifies following investigation or exposure Increased danger to individual/institutions Very high Very High The Government's 2026 state-threat framework expressly describes foreign states and proxies as capable of hostile activity in the UK, including espionage, sabotage, foreign interference and serious violence. G GOV.UK+1 Cross-level threat assessment Some threats cannot be confined to one level.
Cross-level threat Individual Institution UK national security Overall potential risk Foreign-directed surveillance Very High High Very High Very High Foreign-directed stalking/harassment Very High High Very High Very High UK proxy network High Very High Very High Very High Political repression Very High Very High Very High Very High Institutional facilitation Very High Critical Critical Critical if substantiated Intelligence collection Very High High Very High Very High Serious physical violence Critical Moderate Very High Critical Deprivation of liberty Critical Moderate High/Very High Critical Sexual coercion Very High Low/Moderate Moderate Very High to individual Cyber/electronic compromise Very High High Very High Very High Suppression of political activity Very High Very High Very High Very High Intimidation of wider dissident community High Very High Very High Very High Foreign intelligence assistance High Very High Critical Critical if established Terrorism scenario Critical Critical Critical Critical — but statutory threshold must be established Threat escalation model The principal concern would be escalation, rather than treating every allegation as an isolated event. Stage 1 — Information gathering Surveillance → monitoring → pattern-of-life information → identification of contacts/vulnerabilities Risk: High → Very High Stage 2 — Social and psychological control
Smears → isolation → intimidation → coercion → disruption of ordinary life Risk: Very High Stage 3 — Institutional interference Proxy activity → access to officials/services → manipulation or obstruction → institutional dependence Risk: Very High → Critical Stage 4 — Political suppression Target political activity → deter individual → intimidate wider community → suppress participation Risk: Very High Stage 5 — Serious physical threat Surveillance/intelligence → vulnerability identification → physical intimidation → serious violence Risk: Critical Stage 6 — State-threat escalation Foreign direction → domestic proxy network → institutional penetration → political interference → serious violence/sabotage Risk: Critical This escalation model is consistent with the Government's description of state-threat activity: it identifies dissident targeting, collection of patterns of life and vulnerabilities, harassment, physical threats and potentially assassination as part of the range of activity that security professionals should be alert to. G GOV.UK Risk factors increasing the assessment If independently established, the following would materially increase the risk rating: Risk factor Why it matters Long duration — ~2 years 2 months Indicates persistence rather than an isolated event 24/7 nature alleged Suggests potentially sustained capability and resources
Risk factor Why it matters Multiple actors Could indicate coordination rather than individual offending Foreign connection Introduces state-threat/foreign-interference possibility UK-based proxies Gives alleged foreign operation domestic reach Political target Raises potential political-interference dimension Access to personal information Can facilitate escalation and targeting Access to public officials Raises institutional-compromise concerns Technical capability Potentially increases surveillance capability Alleged serious violence/torture Raises immediate physical-safety risk Alleged confinement Indicates potentially extreme coercive capability Retaliation following complaints Could indicate an attempt to suppress detection Continued international political activity May create continuing motivation for political targeting Evidence of foreign instructions Would materially strengthen state-threat hypothesis Evidence of financial/material support Could establish operational infrastructure Evidence of common communications/command structure Would strengthen organised-operation hypothesis Key national-security finding I would formulate the overall assessment cautiously as follows: If the allegations are substantiated, the threat should not be assessed solely as a personal-security matter. The alleged combination of prolonged surveillance, coercion, political targeting, serious abuse, foreign involvement and UK-based proxy activity potentially creates a multi-level threat encompassing the individual, UK public institutions and UK national security. The principal national-security concern would be the possibility that a foreign power or foreign intelligence service has been able to conduct coercive or intelligence activity within the United Kingdom through domestic intermediaries, potentially exploiting legitimate UK relationships, personnel or public functions.
Such activity could create a continuing threat even where the immediate victim is a single individual, because successful use of UK-based proxies would demonstrate an ability to project foreign coercive influence into the UK, potentially undermine protected rights, interfere with political activity and compromise confidence in public institutions. The appropriate response would therefore be a parallel assessment of individual criminality, foreign interference/state-threat indicators and, where the statutory requirements may potentially be engaged, counter-terrorism considerations. The Government itself describes the National Security Act 2023 as addressing hostile foreign-state activity including espionage, foreign interference, sabotage, disinformation, cyber operations and assassination, while the newer 2026 framework expressly recognises the role of foreign proxies in hostile activity in the UK. G GOV.UK+1 Overall risk conclusion Level Overall potential risk Reason Individual 🔴 VERY HIGH / potentially CRITICAL Alleged prolonged surveillance, coercion, confinement, sexual coercion and serious physical abuse UK institutions 🔴 VERY HIGH / potentially CRITICAL Alleged use or compromise of UK personnel, services or public functions Democratic system 🔴 VERY HIGH Alleged targeting of politically active individual and potential deterrence of wider political activity Foreign interference 🔴 VERY HIGH Alleged foreign direction and UK-based proxy activity UK national security 🔴 VERY HIGH / potentially CRITICAL if substantiated Potential foreign intelligence operation operating through domestic networks Terrorism 🟠 POTENTIAL — requires statutory assessment Serious conduct + political context may warrant referral, but the specific terrorism elements must be proved Escalation 🔴 HIGH to CRITICAL depending on evidence Particularly concerning if serious violence, foreign direction or institutional access is corroborated This should be treated as a threat-assessment hypothesis, not as proof that the alleged actors or agencies are responsible. For an official submission, that distinction is important both legally and evidentially. The UK's National Risk Register likewise distinguishes assessment of likelihood and impact from proof that a particular event or actor is responsible.
Potential offences — consolidated points Against the individual • Stalking — prolonged surveillance, monitoring, following, watching or spying. • Harassment — sustained course of conduct causing alarm or distress. • Stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm/distress — where the statutory requirements are met. • Threats of violence — depending on the nature of threats and evidence. • Assault / serious assault — if physical violence occurred. • False imprisonment — if the person was unlawfully confined or deprived of liberty. • Kidnapping — if the facts satisfy the additional elements of kidnapping. • Sexual assault / other sexual offences — depending on the alleged sexual coercion and absence of valid consent. • Coercive or controlling behaviour — potentially relevant depending on the relationship and circumstances; the statutory offence has specific applicability requirements. • Unlawful interception of communications — if communications were intercepted without lawful authority. • Unauthorised access to computer material — potentially under the Computer Misuse Act 1990. • Unauthorised interference with computer systems/data — depending on the technical conduct. • Criminal damage — if property or devices were deliberately damaged. • Witness/intimidation-related offences — if conduct was intended to prevent reporting, investigation or participation in legal proceedings. • Perverting the course of justice — if there was deliberate interference with investigations or the administration of justice. Political and rights-based interference • Interference with Convention rights — potentially relevant within the National Security Act 2023 foreign-interference framework where the statutory requirements are satisfied. • Foreign interference — if a foreign power condition, prohibited conduct and statutory interference effect are established. • Interference with public functions or services — potentially under the foreign-interference provisions where the statutory elements are met. • Interference with political processes — potentially under the National Security Act 2023 and/or other applicable legislation, depending on the conduct. • Conspiracy / secondary participation — potentially where multiple persons knowingly agree to or assist substantive offences.
Foreign intelligence / national-security offences • Assisting a foreign intelligence service — National Security Act 2023, s.3, if the statutory requirements are established. • Providing information to a foreign intelligence service — potentially falling within the assistance provisions. • Providing surveillance or other services to a foreign intelligence service — potentially within the assistance framework. • Providing goods, equipment or financial support to a foreign intelligence service — potentially within s.3. • Foreign interference — National Security Act 2023. • Espionage-related offences — where protected information and the relevant foreign-power conditions are established. • Receiving certain material benefits from a foreign intelligence service — where the statutory requirements are satisfied. • State-linked sabotage — if foreign-directed conduct damages or seriously interferes with qualifying infrastructure/systems and the statutory requirements are met. • Preparatory state-threat offences — where the specific statutory preparation offence applies. Public officials / institutional integrity • Misconduct in public office — potentially relevant where a public office-holder deliberately abuses or wilfully neglects their duty in a way satisfying the common-law offence. • Assisting a foreign intelligence service — potentially applicable to an official if the statutory requirements are independently satisfied. • Foreign interference — potentially applicable where an official participates in qualifying foreign-directed conduct. • Perverting the course of justice — potentially where an official deliberately obstructs an investigation or judicial process. • Conspiracy / aiding and abetting / secondary liability — depending on evidence of knowing participation in another offence. • Other corruption or bribery offences — if money, benefits, inducements or improper advantages were involved. Potential terrorism offences • Terrorism under the statutory framework — only if the specific requirements of the Terrorism Act 2000 are satisfied. • Preparation for terrorism — potentially relevant where qualifying preparatory conduct is established.
• Directing a terrorist organisation — only if the facts actually establish the statutory requirements. • Membership/support offences — only where the relevant statutory conditions are met. • Terrorist financing/property offences — only if evidence establishes the necessary connection. Three-level classification Level 1 — Person • Stalking • Harassment • Threats • Assault/serious violence • False imprisonment/kidnapping • Sexual offences • Coercion/control • Unlawful surveillance/interception • Computer offences • Criminal damage • Witness intimidation • Perverting the course of justice Level 2 — UK institutions/democracy • Foreign interference • Interference with Convention rights • Interference with public functions/services • Political-process interference • Misconduct in public office • Perverting the course of justice • Conspiracy/secondary participation • Institutional facilitation of foreign-directed activity Level 3 — UK national security • Assisting a foreign intelligence service • Espionage • Foreign interference
• State-linked sabotage • Foreign intelligence collection • Material support to foreign intelligence activity • State-threat preparation offences • Potential terrorism, if the statutory threshold is independently satisfied Important qualification: these are potential legal classifications, not findings that these offences occurred. In particular, foreign involvement, political motivation, organised activity or severe harassment does not automatically constitute terrorism or espionage; the specific statutory elements and evidence must establish the offence.