The refusal of the government to describe China as an active threat to national security in its evidencewas a “total roadblock” to the progression of the case against two alleged spies, the prosecution’s lead barrister has said.
Tom Little KC told MPs and peers on the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy (JCNSS) that the question of whether or not China was a threat to national security was “the million-dollar question in the case” and the failure to describe it as one “brought this case effectively to a crashing halt”.
Meanwhile, director of public prosecutions (DPP) Stephen Parkinson suggested that deputy national security adviser Matt Collins, who gave evidence on behalf of the government, knew the case would collapse if he did not offer evidence that China was a threat.
“It was made clear that the evidence we sought was critical,” Mr Parkinson told MPs and peers. “The language used was: ‘We don’t want to get into a situation in which the case is dismissed at half time’.
“At the very latest, [Mr Collins] would have understood this because at the meeting on 9 September, it had been made plain that the case could not proceed because he was unable to give the positive answer that had been sought.”
He said the failure to say China was an active threat to national security was “fatal” to the case.
The collapse of the case against Christopher Cash, a former parliamentary researcher, and Christopher Berry – who both denied charges under the Official Secrets Act – has raised questions about Britain’s willingness to confront China as Sir Keir Starmer’s government looks to build closer ties with the country.
While Mr Parkinson insisted the failure of the case was not “a question of blame”, he also told the JCNSS that he felt there should be “no difficulty, in fact, in answering the question that we posed: was China an active threat to national security at the material time?”
“We thought that would be evidence that could be given relatively easily, but it turned out to be a sticking point,” he said.
“It took 14 months to get the answer to that question, and the answer was no. And it took quite a lot of effort on our part to try and get the answer. But what you can’t do as a prosecutor is just tell people what to say. You can only obviously ask questions.
“It was not so much the evidence that was given, it was that the answer went to the heart of the issues, and it was fatal to the case.”
Speaking about a meeting with the deputy national security adviser (DNSA), Mr Little said it was “clear to me that he would not say that China posed an active threat to national security at the material time”.
“That was in answer to what I regard as the million-dollar question in the case, and once he had said that the current prosecution for those charges was effectively unsustainable, that’s my carefully reflected position.”
Giving evidence later in the evening, Mr Collins said he stopped short of describing China as a threat “in a generic term” because that reflected government policy at the time of the alleged spying by two men on behalf of Beijing.
The DNSA said: “In all of my statements, what I was trying to do was to demonstrate the range of ways China poses threats to our national security.
“In the first witness statement, I set out the range of espionage threat, in the second and third statements, I set out the cyber threats, the economic security threats and the threats to our democratic institutions. What I didn’t do was to define or label China as a threat in a generic term.”
He added: “When I started this process, I was always clear that I would need to be in line with government policy at the time.
“I’ve quoted extensively the range of government policy documents at the time, and the government at that time did not go so far as to label China a threat in the generic sense.”
Mr Collins also said he was “surprised” to learn the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was dropping the case against two alleged Chinese spies, telling MPs and peers he only became aware it might collapse on 3 September.
The session also saw Mr Collins tell MPs and peers he was asked to include a line on the current government’s position in his witness statements by counter terrorism police, “for fear that there would be a wedge driven between my witness statements and the new government’s policy”.
It comes after Mr Collins included a sentence that mimicked language in Labour’s manifesto in his witness statements, sparking accusations of political interference in the case.
Asked why the exact wording of Labour’s policy on China was included in his later evidence, Mr Collins said: “I was asked to include a reference to the new government’s policy by Counter Terrorism Police (CTP), for fear that there would be a wedge driven between my witness statements and the new government’s policy. I did that.
“Just as a point of fact, I drew from an answer to a parliamentary question, rather than the Labour Party manifesto.”
Asked if political pressure had been placed on him to include a reference to Labour’s position, he replied: “No. I was asked by CTP, as I was throughout all of my witness statements, to provide evidence in support of the case to secure a successful prosecution.”
