Prince Andrew aide asks court to withhold alleged spy testimony
A top aide to Prince Andrew is urging a court to withhold his account of the prince's relationship with an alleged Chinese spy because he did not realise it could become public.Dominic Hampshire played a key role in the development of Yang Tengbo's relationship with the Duke of York - but the full details of what happened between the three men remain unclear.Last month a court rejected Mr Yang's appeal against being banned from the UK, after an intelligence assessment that he could be secretly working for the Chinese state. Mr Yang has denied all wrongdoing.Lawyers for the BBC and other media organisations argued at the Special Immigrations Appeal Commission (Siac) on Friday that Mr Hampshire could not keep his account private simply because he had lacked the "common sense" to find out if it might become public.
In December, the court said Mr Yang had formed an "unusual degree of trust" with the prince and had not disclosed his links to an arm of the Chinese Communist Party clandestinely involved in political interference.It upheld the home secretary's conclusion that he was a threat to national security.Who is alleged Chinese spy linked to Prince Andrew?The BBC and other news organisations are now asking Siac to release a witness statement that Mr Hampshire wrote in support of Mr Yang after the aide had been first contacted by British intelligence.In submissions on Friday, lawyers for Mr Hampshire said that he had sought assurances from Mr Yang's lawyers that the witness statement would remain private - and he had only realised it could become public when he arrived at the appeal hearing last July.Mr Hampshire then withdrew the statement in an attempt to prevent it from becoming public."I was told that the information [in the statement] would be kept private and confidential," Mr Hampshire said to the court in written submissions on Friday."If there was any question of this being available in the public domain, I was not warned of it."If I had been, I would never have agreed to submit a witness statement, much less go into the level of confidential detail which I did."I wrote what I did in the statement with such candour – including about my own confidential commercial interests but also about the private interests of third parties – in the expectation it was for the private attention of one of the most senior ministries of state on a grave matter."I quite simply would not have volunteered to write about those matters had I known that there was any chance, however small, that it was for use in a forum which was or could become public."
Adam Wolanski KC, representing the media organisations, said there was an exceptionally strong public interest case to release Mr Hampshire's account to journalists, along with other documents that remain confidential."It is extraordinary that a person in Mr Hampshire's position, apparently charged with dealing with confidential and sensitive matters on behalf of the Duke of York, did not bother obtaining his own legal advice before agreeing to provide a witness statement to Mr Yang," said Mr Wolanski in written submissions."Mr Hampshire cannot now pray in aid his mystifying and unexplained decision to give a witness statement in this obviously highly contentious matter without seeking his own legal advice."He should not be permitted to benefit from his, to put it kindly, lack of common sense and his bad decision to proceed without legal advice."The court must instead proceed on the basis that he made this decision with his eyes open, knowing the risk that the evidence may become public."Mr Yang became a highly trusted confidante of Prince Andrew following the duke's interview with the BBC's Newsnight programme in November 2019, which detailed the Duke's friendship with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.The fallout from the interview led to the prince withdrawing from public duties - and the end of his commercially successful Dragons Den-style investor events in the UK and China.In March 2020, Mr Hampshire told Mr Yang in a letter that he had managed to salvage the prince's reputation in China.Seven months later the businessman was authorised to represent the prince in China in a planned $3bn investment fund.The "Eurasia Fund" scheme aimed to raise cash to invest in Chinese state projects in Africa and the Middle East.Developing the regions is a cornerstone of the Chinese Communist Party's plan to expand its diplomatic and financial reach.The discovery of the scheme, and the fear that the prince was being drawn into a complex Beijing plan to influence him, led the home secretary to ban Mr Yang from the UK.He has denied all wrongdoing - saying he is a legitimate businessman who has worked for decades to improve links between China and the UK.Mr Yang came to study in the UK in 2002 and later set up a series of China-related travel and business consultancy firms.He met the Duke of York in 2014 and later took on a role in the China-based version of Prince Andrew's "Pitch@Palace" events, in which entrepreneurs sell their ideas to investors.Siac will rule later on whether further documents from the case will be made public.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
3 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
UK issues unusual 'rising tensions' warning as US orders diplomatic evacuations
The Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO), a British maritime security agency, has taken measures following Donald Trump's move to issue evacuation orders for non-essential personnel The UK has issued an "unusual warning" to its commercial ships in the Middle East amid "rising tensions". The Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) fears "an escalation of military activity" is on the cards across the region, and believs security may be at risk. It says vessels must use the Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman and Straits of Hormuz, all of which pass Iran, with caution for the forseeable future. Iran publicly threatened to attack US military bases in the Middle East if they were attacked first. Donald Trump added fuel to the fire yesterday, crassly stating the country will never have a nuclear weapon whether a deal is reached or not. 'UKMTO has been made aware of increased tensions within the region which could lead to an escalation of military activity having a direct impact on mariners. Vessels are advised to transit the Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman and Straits of Hormuz with caution," the UKMTO said today. The Trump administration has issued evacuation orders for non-essential personnel at the US Embassy in Iraq, and its diplomatic facilities in Bahrain and Kuwait. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth also told FOX News there would be voluntary departure for dependents of military personnel serving in the Central Command (CENTCOM) area of operations across the Middle East. This discourse led to the UKMTO advisory today as regional tensions surged. Iranian officials appeared to be responding to calls from hawks in the US to dismantle Iran's nuclear program by force if necessary. But Mr Trump was pessimistic when interviewed earlier this week. The US President said: "I don't know. I'm less confident now than I would have been a couple of months ago. Something happened to them, but I am much less confident of a deal being made." He spoke on the podcast Pod Force One on Monday, which explored in depth the tense situation across the Middle East. Meanwhile, suspected US airstrikes on Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen killed at least three people recently. Yemeni rebels said they shot down a £25m Reaper attack drone during April's onslaught, which indicated a possible US attack on Iran. It happened after the US moved six of its prized B-2 Strategic Stealth bombers to the secretive Indo-Pacific island base of Diego Garcia. Hours after the surprise announcement of the Washington-Tehran talks, Iran's foreign minister said the conversation in Oman would be "indirect" but could be "as much an opportunity as... a test." Mr Trump - who pulled the US out a 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and world powers during his first term - said discussions would be at "very high level," as he delivered his warning to Tehran.
Spectator
4 hours ago
- Spectator
Imperialism still overshadows our intellectual history
Peter Watson begins his survey of the history of ideas in Britain with the assertion that the national mindset (which at that time was the English mindset) changed significantly after the accession of Elizabeth I. His book – a guide to the nature of British intellectual curiosity since the mid-16th century – begins there, just as England had undergone a liberation from a dominant European authority: the shaking off of the influence of the Roman Catholic church and the advent of the Reformation, and the new opportunities that offered for the people. He describes how a culture based largely on poetry and on the court of Elizabeth then redirected the prevailing intellectual forces of the time. This affected not just literature (Marlowe, Shakespeare and Jonson) but also helped develop an interest in science that grew remarkably throughout the next few centuries. The 'imagination' of Watson's title is not merely the creative artistic imagination, but also that of scientists and inventors and, indeed, of people adept at both. The book is, according to its footnotes, based on secondary sources, so those well read in the history of the intellect in Britain since the Reformation will find much that is familiar. There is the odd surprise, such as one that stems from the book's occasional focus on the British empire and the need felt today to discuss its iniquities. Watson writes that the portion of the British economy based on the slave trade (which must not be conflated with empire) was between 1 per cent and 1.4 per cent. He also writes that for much of the era of slavery the British had a non-racial view of it, since their main experience of the odious trade was of white people being captured by Barbary pirates and held to ransom. While this cannot excuse the barbarism endured by Africans shipped by British (and other) slavers across the Atlantic, it lends some perspective to a question in serious danger of losing any vestige of one. Watson does not come down on one side or the other in the empire debate, eschewing the 'balance sheet' approach taken by historians such as Nigel Biggar and Niall Ferguson; but he devotes too much of the last section of his book to the question, when other intellectual currents in the opening decades of the 21st century might have been more profitably explored, not least the continuing viability of democracy. Earlier on, he gives much space to an analysis of Edward Said, and questions such as whether Jane Austen expressed her antipathy to slavery sufficiently clearly in the novel Mansfield Park. But then some of Watson's own analyses of writers and thinkers are not always easily supported. He is better on the 18th century – dealing well with the Scottish enlightenment (giving a perfectly nuanced account of Adam Smith) and writers such as Burke and Gibbon – than he appears to be on the 19th. He gives Carlyle his due, but cites an article in a learned American journal from 40 years ago to justify his claim that Carlyle's 'reputation took a knock' in 1849 with the publication of his Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question. Watson says readers were offended by the use of the term 'Quashee' to describe a black man. They may well, if so, have been unsettled by the still less palatable title that the Discourse was subsequently given, which was The Nigger Question: it appeared thus in a 1853 pamphlet and in the Centenary Edition of Carlyle's works in 1899. That indicates the Discourse did Carlyle's reputation no lasting harm at the time, whatever it may have done since. In seeking to pack so much into fewer than 500 pages of text, Watson does skate over a few crucial figures. Some of his musings on empire might have been sacrificed to make more space for George Orwell, for example. A chapter in whose title his name appears features just one brief paragraph on him, about Homage to Catalonia, and later there is a page or so on Animal Farm, which says nothing new. Of Orwell's extensive and mould-breaking journalism there is nothing – somewhat surprising in a book about the British imagination when dealing with one of its leading exponents of the past century. Watson emphasises scientific discovery and innovation, and the effect on national life and ideas caused by the Industrial Revolution. These are all essential consequences of our intellectual curiosity, and he is right to conclude that the historic significance of Britain in these fields is immense. He includes league tables of Nobel prizewinners by nation in which Britain shows remarkably well. But these prizes are not the only means by which the contribution to civilisation and progress by a people are measured. There are notable omissions. Although Watson talks about the elitist nature of 'high culture' – such as Eliot and The Waste Land – he does not discuss how far the British imagination, and the British contribution to world civilisation, might have advanced had we taken the education of the masses more seriously earlier. We were, until the Butler Education Act of 1944, appalling at developing our human resources, and have not been much better since. It is surprising that there is no discussion of British music, one of the greatest fruits of the imagination of the past 150 years. And there is no analysis of the role of architecture, which, given its impact and its centrality to many people's idea of themselves as British, surely merited examination. The book shows extensive and intelligent reading, but trying to cram so much information and commentary into one volume has not been a complete success, or resulted in something entirely coherent.
Spectator
4 hours ago
- Spectator
I've lost control of the kitchen
Looking back, I can pinpoint my fatal blunder. It was lunch. It was like the West allowing Vladimir Putin to help himself to the Crimean peninsula without a peep, basically. This is how it happened. My husband had invited two families to stay over the May bank holiday which bled into half term. For four days. 'Don't worry,' he said, in light tones, ahead of their arrival. 'I've told them they're bringing all the food and doing all the cooking.' As if I'd welcome this wonderful idea, when in fact what he'd suggested was the domestic equivalent of handing over the nuclear football and the codes behind my back. The guests are delightful and I couldn't wait to have them all (five adults and five children), but guests handling the catering was never going to happen under my roof, as my husband ought to have known. One, I am a fast and capable cook. I came second to Ed Balls in the final of the BBC's Celebrity Best Home Cook series (and maintain that he won because he made a pirate cake with full sails out of chocolate and he blubbed). Two, if an Englishman's home is his castle, the female equivalent of the White House Situation Room is a woman's kitchen. The last thing I needed, in other words, was several other bossy middle-class parents occupying my catering HQ on Exmoor. Plus, I'd already ordered a van-busting home delivery from Sainsbury's. On the Art of War principle that 'supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemies' resistance without fighting', I replied: 'Oh no, don't worry! But maybe they can do lunches?' Category error on my part. Perhaps I'm late to the party here but, as it turned out, the families didn't really have a concept of 'lunch' as a separate meal, after breakfast and before supper. They simply prepared and ate fare whenever they or their children were hungry, which was, of course, all the time. In more civilised places than the Johnson compound, i.e. Provence or Tuscany, when you have 12 people for four days it's understood that one of the 'main' meals will be 'out', i.e. at a restaurant to spare mine hosts, and the convention is that the guests stump for this. But the farm is two miles from Tarmac. It's an hour round trip for a pint of milk. A two-hour round trip to a pub. All meals are eaten in and none are 'opt'. The last thing I needed was several other bossy middle-class parents occupying my catering HQ on Exmoor On day one, everyone arrived at teatime after extended drives on the M4 and M5. We had tea and cake, and a late-ish supper. So far, so good. Two meals down! Day two was different. When provisioning, I'd texted my husband's nephew to ask what his three heavenly girls ate for breakfast. 'Bacon eggs toast juice fruit yoghurts porridge etc,' came the detailed reply. I therefore rose at 8 a.m. to slam the first tray of bacon in, yet there were people refilling the coffee jug and boiling eggs and stirring porridge at elevenses. Still, the guests did a fine clear-up and cleared off with the kids to a local beauty spot while I made scones for tea. Everyone returned from Tarr Steps at 1 p.m., making noises about their lunch duty, and invaded the kitchen. For hours. With what I felt was superhuman restraint – I can make an apple crumble in five minutes flat, and on Best Home Cook I made crab ravioli on a bed of fennel with a citrus jus from scratch starting with flour and water for the homemade pasta in 35 minutes – I only said 'But how long does it actually take to boil rice?' loudly around three times. At 3 p.m. (!) there was a simple lunch of delicious dahl (brought from London in Tupperware) and the rice on the table. As I shovelled it in, I worked out that at this rate, there would be half an hour until tea; tea would run straight into children's supper; and then adult supper. I had an awful vision of us all mealing non-stop till bedtime. I therefore put my fork and foot down and made an announcement. First, there would be a 'breakfast window' of an hour. As it was already past 3.30, I went on, we would have the scones for pudding. This went down well. So I went to the kitchen to fetch the scones. It was then that I discovered a full tray of chicken pieces in the Aga bubbling in their juices. Genuinely panicked, I returned laden with the scones, Rodda's and jams. 'And what meal is all the chicken in the Aga for?' I queried, brokenly. The table fell silent. 'Oh I put them in, just in case the children were hungry… later,' one perfect guest replied as a dozen arms shot out to grab the scones as if they'd been deliberately starved by colonial aggressors for months. I sank to my chair and applied golden, crusted Rodda's thickly to my scone. It was clear there'd still be a whole other meal 'later', i.e. between now and children's supper and, after that, two more days of culinary occupation. On day three the dishwasher flooded. On day four, the Aga went out as if in protest and could not be relit. Looking back, yes – it was lunch. Lose lunch, and you'll be out-generalled in your own kitchen by a chicken traybake.
