The Huawei security leak that led to the sacking of Gavin Williamson as defence secretary did not breach the Official Secrets Act, police say.

Scotland Yard has said it was satisfied that the disclosure from a meeting of the National Security Council (NSC), which prompted a Whitehall mole hunt, was not a crime.

It follows calls at Westminster for a criminal investigation into the leak.

Details of a decision to green-light a bid by Chinese telecoms giant Huawei to help build Britain's 5G network found their way into the media last month.

Williamson denies role in Huawei leak

Theresa May has defended her decision to dismiss Mr Williamson after an inquiry found "compelling evidence" that he leaked information.


Mr Williamson has since denied he was responsible for the information becoming public, but the prime minister told Sky News she has confidence the inquiry that led to him being fired was "properly conducted".

Met Police Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu said he had spoken to the Cabinet Office about the leaked material, adding: "I am satisfied that what was disclosed did not contain information that would breach the Official Secrets Act.

"I have considered all the information available to me and I have taken legal advice.

"I am satisfied that the disclosure did not amount to a criminal offence, either under the Official Secrets Act or Misconduct in a Public Office.

"No crime has been committed and this is not a matter for the police."

He added: "Any organisation has the right to conduct an internal investigation into conduct in the workplace. It is not a matter for the police unless a crime is alleged.

PM evades Williamson question three times

"No crime has been alleged by the owner of the material and I am clear that the leak did not cause damage to the public interest at a level at which it would be necessary to engage Misconduct in a Public Office.

"It would be inappropriate to carry out a police investigation in these circumstances."

Mr Williamson had told Sky News he would get the "nicest apology" from the prime minister if a criminal inquiry had gone ahead.

He had been "massively comfortable" with the prospect, adding that he was "visibly shocked" when he was informed of the decision to sack him and challenged Mrs May to give him a copy of the internal report that led to his dismissal.

Sky's political editor Beth Rigby put Mr Williamson's plea for the report to Mrs May, who refused to answer directly but said she was confident his sacking was justified.

Huawei disclosure 'a breach of trust' - Gauke

Speaking to Sky News, Justice Secretary David Gauke repeatedly refused to be drawn on whether Mr Williamson should be able to see the inquiry report, insisting it was "a matter for the prime minister".

He also argued the disclosure of information had not been a criminal offence but was "not acceptable behaviour" given where it had been leaked from.

Mr Gauke said: "If the prime minister does not have trust in a cabinet colleague then she's entitled to dismiss that cabinet colleague and that's what's happened here."

He added: "It's not so much a matter of a criminal offence, it is a matter of a breach of trust and that is more of an employment issue rather than a legal issue."

There has been no official confirmation from the government that it does plan to allow Huawei to play a key role in the development of 5G in the UK, amid concerns it could enable spying by the Chinese government.

Australia, New Zealand and the US are among the Western nations to have barred the company from supplying vital elements of their infrastructure, and Canada could follow suit.

Following reports that the NSC had decided to allow Huawei to be involved in Britain, Downing Street said: "We don't comment on NSC discussions."

A member of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations has warned it is "certainly possible" that Washington could cut off security co-operation with the UK if the government involved Huawei in the UK's 5G network.

Democrat senator Chris Coons said the withdrawal of co-operation should happen only as a "last resort" after careful consultation, but made clear it was an option that would have to be considered.