GCHQ intern jailed for national security breach for downloading top secret information
Hasaan Arshad, 25, was in 'flagrant breach' of tight security rules when he used his mobile phone to remove material from a computer system and transfer it to his private computer on 24 August 2022.
The Manchester University computer science student, from Rochdale, Greater Manchester, pleaded guilty to an offence under the Computer Misuse Act which carries a maximum penalty of life in prison.
He also admitted two charges of making an indecent photograph of a child in relation to 40 category A images and four category B images found on his personal phone following his arrest.
On Friday 13 June, he appeared at the Old Bailey to be sentenced by Mrs Justice McGowan, where she jailed him for seven and a half years.
The court was told that part of the hearing – including a detailed assessment of the harm caused – would be outlined behind closed doors in the absence of the press and public.
However, the court was told that Arshad's actions 'lost a tool' being developed at GCHQ, risked exposing the identities of 17 GCHQ colleagues, and undermined the trust of partners.
Opening the facts in open court, prosecutor Duncan Atkinson KC said: 'His actions created a significant risk of damage to national security for reasons that can only be fully explained in a private hearing.
'In short, however, his actions compromised the security and utility of the material and the role it played in the national interest, and he also in the process put the safety of intelligence agency personnel at risk.'
The Government Communications Headquarters – known as GCHQ – is the UK's intelligence, security and cyber agency and plays an important role in keeping the country safe, in conjunction with MI5 and the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6).
The highest levels of security are needed for GCHQ to carry out its work to gain information about threats to the UK from 'hostile states or terrorists' by using lawful covert tools and techniques, the court was told.
Mr Atkinson said: 'Put bluntly, if hostile states or terrorists were aware of how GCHQ was able to gather intelligence about their plans, they would be able to prevent the intelligence community in the UK from learning of those plans at a stage and to an extent that allows the intelligence community to thwart them.'
At the time of the offence, Arshad was coming to the end of an industry year placement with a technical development team which required him to work at a secure GCHQ site near Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, and use computer systems.
The court heard he was part of a team that worked on the development of 'tools and techniques' to obtain information about threats to the UK.
Arshad had undergone GCHQ induction and was required to sign the Official Secrets Act.
It was made 'abundantly clear' to Arshad that his access to top secret material had to be in controlled circumstances at 'an extremely secure location', Mr Atkinson said.
He went on: 'In flagrant breach of those obvious and necessary restrictions, the defendant used a mobile handset provided for his use whilst on his work placement but with strictly confined scope as to its permitted use, to remove Top Secret material from the top secret network of the technical development team to which he had been attached.
'He then transported that material from the secure location where he had been working to his home, risking it falling into the wrong hands or being lost, and downloaded it onto a removable hard drive which formed part of IT system that he used at his home address.
'This home computer system wholly failed to match the necessarily exacting security requirements of GCHQ's systems, and therefore exposed this Top Secret material to the vagaries and risks of an unsecure computer system
connected to the internet at an insecure location.
'This significant security breach compromised lawful intelligence related activity that was being undertaken in the national interest. In doing so, he threw away many thousands of hours of work, and significant sums of taxpayers' money.'
Mr Atkinson said his actions had damaged 'confidence in UK security' because the data included the identities of a 'significant number' of GCHQ colleagues and put others' safety at 'direct risk'.
Following his arrest, the defendant admitted removing data without authorisation 'out of curiosity'.
He said in a statement that he had no intention to hand over the data to anyone else.
He told police: 'I would like to apologise for my actions. I removed the data simply out of curiosity.
'I'm sorry for my actions and I understand the stupidity of what I have done.'
Arshad said he 'went out of my way' to ensure the data was stored locally and not in the cloud.
Asked if he had breached the level of trust and confidence by removing the sensitive data without authority, he replied: 'No comment.'
Mitigating, Arshad's lawyer Nina Grahame KC said the defendant had been 'reckless' 'thoughtless and naive'.
His internship had involved working on a 'specific project' which he had been unable to complete before the end of the placement, she explained
He took the data home because he wanted to 'continue and complete the most exciting and challenging work the defendant had ever undertaken' in the hope of gaining future employment at GCHQ, Ms Grahame said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
05-08-2025
- Telegraph
Spy agencies repeat internship white British applicants cannot apply for
Britain's intelligence services have re-opened a summer internship scheme which ban white participants from applying, despite critics last year labelling it 'racist'. First launched in 2023, the MI5, MI6 and GCHQ Summer Intelligence Internship has been offered only to young people from a 'Black, Asian, mixed heritage or ethnic minority background and from a socially or economically disadvantaged background'. When the scheme for this summer was first advertised, Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, described the programme as 'racist' and called for it to be axed. 'I understand the need to encourage applications from a wide range of backgrounds, including under-represented minorities,' he said. 'But this is an overtly racist policy and it should be immediately discontinued. It implies it's impossible for any white person to be deprived or deserving of assistance.' Claire Coutinho, the shadow energy secretary, said: 'Deciding who can do a summer internship scheme based on the colour of their skin is bad enough. To bar patriotic white Britain's who want to serve their country, but allow white Irish people, is utterly mad. 'To make matters worse, the security services will also shut you out if you're a child of a nurse, a cabbie or your dad ran a corner shop, while the child of an £80,000 a year train driver is eligible. 'This is state-sponsored discrimination. We should just choose the best people for the job. The Conservatives will defend fairness and stand firmly against ideology replacing competence.' However, despite widespread criticism the scheme is set to go ahead. The programme will run for 10 or more weeks depending on the service, and has been offered to 'increase diversity within our organisations' by the intelligence services. The advert also states that applicants must also be 'from a socially or economically disadvantaged background', as alongside ethnic minorities they are 'currently under-represented in the UK's Intelligence Services'. One former senior Royal Air Force (RAF) officer previously said he believed the decision not to allow poor white students to apply is 'blatant discrimination'. Tim Davies, a former squadron leader, said: 'Opportunities are being denied to white children, that's just a fact, they cannot apply just because they are white.' He said that the RAF had made a similar mistake when pursuing a recruitment policy, which led to accusations that it had discriminated against white men in its effort to meet 'aspirational diversity targets'. The Ministry of Defence subsequently admitted that 'despite the best of intentions, some mistakes were made' in its approach, after reports of a recruitment drive which appeared to favour women and ethnic minority candidates. The inquiry followed the resignation of the RAF's head of recruitment, after she reportedly refused an order to hire more diverse candidates because she believed it was 'unlawful'. Earlier this year, The Telegraph reported that an intern hired by GCHQ stole secret data and returned home with it, in what was described as a national security breach. Hasaan Arshad, 25, took his work mobile to a top secret area of the GCHQ building, connected it to a workstation, and was then allowed to take the device home unchallenged. Thereafter he transferred sensitive information to a hard drive linked to his personal computer, and was arrested a month later downloading it. It was not clear whether Arshad was admitted as an intern through the diversity scheme. The Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, the department responsible for the Security Services, was contacted for comment.


Daily Record
24-07-2025
- Daily Record
M&S advert banned by watchdog for promoting 'unhealthily thin' model
The fashion advert has been pulled following criticism from the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA.) M&S has come under fire for an online fashion advert. It has since been pulled following criticism from the UK's advertising watchdog. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) deemed it was "irresponsible" for M&S to utilise the image in question to advertise its clothes on its mobile app, as it showed an "unhealthily thin" model. Condemning the ad, the ASA advised that the model, wearing slim-fit trousers and a white top, "appeared thin and she wore large pointed shoes which emphasised the slenderness of her legs". It also observed the camera angles made the model's head appear disproportionate and "highlighted her small frame", reports the Mirror. The ASA determined: "Therefore, we considered that the pose of the model and the choice of clothing meant the ad gave the impression that the model was unhealthily thin". Following the prohibition, Marks and Spencer expressed remorse for any distress caused and swiftly removed the image. A representative for the retailer stated: "Our womenswear sizing ranges from size 8 to 24 and we always want to reflect that in our advertising." They added: "The product images on our website feature models of varying sizes so we can appeal to all our customers, however following the ASA guidance, we have removed this particular image from our website and apologise for any offence caused." Whilst three additional images were flagged to the ASA by worried shoppers, the authority did not deem these to be in breach, therefore no further action against the high street giant was pursued. It comes as four individuals have been apprehended by the police in connection with cyber attacks on M&S, Co-op, and Harrods. The arrests encompass three teenagers – a 17 year old British lad from the West Midlands, a 19 year old Latvian man also from the West Midlands, a 19 year old British chap from London – and a 20 year old British woman from Staffordshire. The suspects were taken into custody on suspicion of blackmail, money laundering, offences related to the Computer Misuse Act, and involvement in the activities of an organised crime group. All four remain in custody. Paul Foster, who leads the NCA's National Cyber Crime Unit, commented: "Since these attacks took place, specialist NCA cybercrime investigators have been working at pace and the investigation remains one of the agency's highest priorities." He continued: "Today's arrests are a significant step in that investigation but our work continues, alongside partners in the UK and overseas, to ensure those responsible are identified and brought to justice." Following the cyber attack, which occurred over the Easter weekend and disrupted contactless payments in stores as well as click and collect orders, M&S had to temporarily close its online shop. It was subsequently revealed that customer data was compromised, including names, email addresses, physical addresses, and dates of birth; however, card or payment details were not affected. The head of M&S provided an update last week, stating that the remainder of its online operations should be back up and running by next month. The supermarket began to resume online orders in June, but some services are yet to return to normal. For instance, customers are still unable to place orders for click and collect or next day delivery. Furthermore, M&S is not currently delivering to Northern Ireland. Stuart Machin, CEO of M&S, anticipates these services will be fully operational from August. Addressing shareholders at the retailer's annual general meeting, he stated: "Since these attacks took place, specialist NCA cybercrime investigators have been working at pace and the investigation remains one of the Agency's highest priorities."


Times
23-07-2025
- Times
Most state secrets are nothing of the kind
As the double-decker chugged by Lambeth North Tube station, the conductor — this was in the 1970s — would announce the next stop with a chuckle: 'Century House, spies' corner!' The grimy office block housed MI6, which like all Britain's spy agencies then had no official existence. The journalist Duncan Campbell was prosecuted in 1978 for giving the barest outline of the work of GCHQ, Britain's signals intelligence outfit, though neither his scoop nor the bus conductor's joke would have surprised the KGB. During the Cold War it penetrated all our spy agencies. Secrecy is less obsessive now, though the rules — spectacularly breached over Afghan refugees and serving SAS officers — are still strict. The Cabinet Office publishes a helpful manual about definitions and handling of classified information. The DSMA (formerly D-Notice) website lists five topics, such as the storage and transport of nuclear weapons, where the media is asked, sensibly, to restrain its coverage. Real life is much messier. Deliberate leaks, active or merely passive, can serve a useful purpose. It is striking that the US C-17 military transport plane that flew from the US air force's main nuclear weapons storage facility in New Mexico to RAF Lakenheath last week kept its transponder switched on. Online plane-spotters gleefully publicised its flight path. Short of a Pentagon press release that the US was putting nuclear weapons back in Britain for the first time in 17 years, the message could have hardly been clearer. The ban-the-bomb lot may complain but an ostentatious sign that the Trump administration is boosting its commitment to our defence sends a useful warning to the Kremlin. Other leaks stem from shabbier motives. People in all walks of life like to boast. That is why a Grenadier Guards regimental newsletter proudly listed the names of officers now living their best lives with the SAS. Civil servants may be punctiliously tight-lipped but their political masters (and worse, their spin doctors) are easily tempted by the prospect of a favourable headline. Leaks get worse when information is shared between countries. Our American allies can be extraordinarily careless with our secrets, and vice versa. Contractors are even sloppier. The US-based Cyber Intel Systems lists on its website the exact colour shades used for Britain's classification labels: mischief-makers might find that handy. As I was leaving a meeting in spookdom, an official made me tear off the purple 'TOP SECRET' logo from a sheet of paper bearing something entirely innocuous, explaining 'we don't want to see that on the internet'. Even real secrets rarely matter for long. Today's troop movements are tomorrow's irrelevance. The most sizzling political intelligence ('Putin fell over again this morning') rapidly becomes stale: perhaps made redundant by subsequent events, or because it reaches the media. Much more important than the actual information is protecting sources and methods that may provide more nuggets in the future. Any clues to past activity may help enemies to work out current and future doings. Adversaries' ability to spot patterns and anomalies is the hottest topic in the world of secrets right now, and a top preoccupation for the incoming chief of MI6, Blaise Metreweli. The legal revolution of the 1990s, in which our spy agencies gained avowed status and oversight, and later websites and press offices, is dwarfed by the havoc wrought by the digital age on the staples of espionage: tradecraft and cover identities, which conceal secret activity in seemingly inconspicuous behaviour. • MoD hid Afghan leak from MPs For modern-day spies heading to work at our agencies' now far more imposing London headquarters, for example, the worry is not a jocular bus conductor but the CCTV on public transport. Coupled with face-recognition software, and with the other digital clues left in daily life (mobile phone use, electronic payments, credit ratings), and the unlimited availability of computer processing power and storage, this risks making even the most shadowy corners of government an open book. Our enemies can create and search databases to reveal and track our intelligence officers and their military counterparts, and those they work with. (Of course it helps if, as in the case of Afghans seeking refuge here, we create the database ourselves and distribute it by email.) Accountability is flimsy. Our best bet is parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), but past governments have starved it of clout and staff, with a budget frozen since 2013. The ISC issued a blistering protest in May, saying that it in effect had 'no oversight' of the £3 billion we spend annually on spookdom. Despite a judge's recommendation the government sidelined the ISC over the Afghan scandal (which may cost another billion pounds of public money). That was a scandalous breach of the rules: MI6 officers' names were leaked in the database. The ISC is now investigating that, and the government has promised more resources. It has even been able to meet the prime minister, for the first time, shockingly, in more than ten years. But to be truly effective, the ISC should oversee not only intelligence agencies, but other secret bits of government. The special forces, for example, escape regular scrutiny: too secret for parliament's defence committee, and never discussed publicly by ministers. Yet scandals, and self-serving memoirs, abound. Secrecy, like privacy, is essential to our society, economy, legal system and defence. But without proper scrutiny from judges and politicians it spares our decision-makers' blushes, not the victims of their blunders. We all lose out from that.