Royal Navy spying charge: sailor, 24, remanded in custody

The charges relate to alleged offences dating back to 2024

Teddy Young, 24, was arrested at his home in Bedfordshire on 6 October following an investigation by Counter Terrorism Policing London (CTPL).

He had previously been detained in May 2025, more than a year before his latest arrest. 

Young was suspended from his duties in the Royal Navy following that initial detention and was later placed on gardening leave, where he remained until this week.

The charges relate to alleged offences said to have occurred between 26 November 2024 and 21 May 2025.

According to the Metropolitan Police, Young is accused of obtaining protected information that could be useful to a foreign power.

 He is also alleged to have prepared to disclose such information, as well as obtaining, copying, recording or keeping it with the intention of benefiting a foreign power.

The Crown Prosecution Service authorised the charges on Wednesday under the National Security Act.

Young is due to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court today.

Police have stressed the seriousness of the allegations

Police have emphasised that the investigation has no connection to the separate case surrounding the recent incident at RAF Fairford.

Cmdr Helen Flanagan, who leads Counter Terrorism Policing London, said the allegations were particularly serious given that the suspect is a serving member of the armed forces.

“We have worked extremely closely with relevant operational colleagues within the Ministry of Defence as our investigation has progressed to ensure appropriate measures could be taken to mitigate any potential risks linked to this matter.”

The Royal Navy confirmed that a member of its personnel had been charged, but said it would not comment further while the legal process is under way.

A spokesperson said: “A member of the Royal Navy has been charged with National Security Act offences following an investigation by Counter Terrorism Policing London. As legal proceedings are ongoing, it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage.”

Flanagan described the case as involving “very serious charges against a serving member of the armed forces”.