Hostile states could use debt orders, like the one received by Boris Johnson, to destroy reputations, says former spy

• Debt claims, like the one issued against Boris Johnson this week, could be used to destroy politicians' reputations, a former UK spy has told Insider.
• Boris Johnson was this week revealed to have been issued with a potentially embarrassing country court judgment ordering him to pay £535.
• The claim was brought against him by a private citizen who claimed the debt was for "defamation."
• Martin Ingram, a former intelligence official, said the tactic "could be used to further embarrass the prime minister or other leading politicians."

Unpaid debt orders, like the one revealed this week to have been issued against Boris Johnson, could be used by hostile powers and lobbying groups to try and smear politicians and destroy their reputations, a former spy has told Insider.

Martin Ingram, a former British spy and security expert, was speaking to Insider after it was revealed that Boris Johnson was issued with a potentially embarrassing country court judgement ordering him to pay £535.

The Daily Mail later revealed that the claim was brought against him by Yvonne Hobbs, who told the court the debt was for "defamation," which Downing Street said was "totally without merit." Johnson does not appear ever to have spoken about Hobbs.

Hobbs has stated on social media "I'm taking on the government," Guido Fawkes reported, and she has issued other legal threats against Chancellor Rishi Sunak, the postal service, and the retail chain Marks & Spencer.

Ingram, who worked for Army Intelligence in Northern Ireland and now writes about intelligence and security issues, explained to Insider before Hobbs' identity was revealed that court judgement and other such legal threats were easy ways for lobbying groups, political opponents, and even hostile nation-states to try and embarrass the prime minister and his colleagues.

He said the "threat that there is in place is the reputational threat."

"[The court judgement] has clearly embarrassed the prime minister in a way that, if it was anyone other than Boris, I think they might be worried - I don't think Boris is going to be particularly worried about it," he said.

Ingram dismissed the idea that the county court judgement posed a national security threat because there were "processes and procedures in place" to consider the prime minister's financial personal arrangements.

However, he added that "it is a tactic that could be used to further embarrass the prime minister or other leading politicians."

He said that it was "very easy" to submit a county court claim and that if there was no response from the respondent, the court would by default find in the claimants' favour, which is reportedly what has happened in Johnson's case.

"Not an awful lot of evidence needs to be produced, so this could be a tactic used to attack the reputation of people and that to me would be more worrying," Ingram said.

One theory as to why the prime minister may not have responded to the county court judgement is simply that it was addressed to 10 Downing Street, while Johnson, in fact, lives at 11 Downing Street, raising the prospect that the relevant letters may have been lost in a large amount of mail received at the Number 10 address.

Johnson is currently the subject of two investigations into his personal finances, which have been the subject of extensive media scrutiny in recent months.

The Electoral Commission is investigating a lavish refurbishment of his flat after concluding there were "reasonable grounds to suspect an offence" had been committed. The parliamentary standards watchdog is investigating who paid for a lavish £15,000 holiday Johnson took to Mustique in December 2019 and January 2020.