Key figures at odds over collapse of China spy case

Key figures involved in the failed criminal case against two men accused of spying for China have given conflicting versions to a parliamentary committee about why the case collapsed.

In September, prosecutors dropped charges against Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry, who had been indicted under the Official Secrets Act. Both men deny any wrongdoing.

Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson said the case could not progress because the government’s deputy national security adviser, Matt Collins, was unwilling to classify China as an active threat to national security.

However, Mr Collins told the committee he had received legal advice that his evidence would be “sufficient”.

He said he always knew the case would be “a challenge” but had “tried to ensure we could support successful prosecutions.”

Mr. Collins – who was to be the government’s witness at trial – added: “So I was somewhat surprised when I was told on September 3 that the intention was to drop the case.”

By contrast, Tom Little KC – who would have been the lead prosecution lawyer in the case – said he would be “surprised” if Mr Collins had not realized the prosecution would collapse if he did not present further evidence.

Earlier in the session, Mr. Little said Mr. Collins had made it clear that he would not say that “China posed an active national security threat at the material time.”

“This was in response to what I consider to be the million-dollar question in this case, and once he had stated that the current prosecution of these charges was indeed untenable,” he added.

He said the case had been “brought to a screeching halt” when Mr Collins highlighted the limits of what he would be prepared to say in court.

Asked by the National Security Strategy Committee about the evidence he provided to prosecutors, Mr. Collins said: “What I was able to say is that China poses a range of threats to our national security.

“I was able to say that these include espionage threats, cyber threats, threats against our democratic institutions, threats against our economic security.

“I can say that these threats are very real and persistent, and that operational partners face them on a daily basis.”

He added that he believed the PSC was asking him “to use the generic term that China is a threat, or China is an active threat, which is not consistent with government policy at the time.”

Committee members pressed why Mr. Collins had not provided enough evidence that China could be considered a threat.

Labor peer Lord Paul Boateng noted that in his testimony Mr Collins had said that “China’s espionage operations threaten the UK’s economic prosperity and resilience, as well as the integrity of our democratic institutions”.

He argued that this phrase would be enough to indicate “we are dealing with an enemy.”

Lord Mark Sedwill, a former national security adviser, suggested that if Mr Collins could only have reflected the government’s view, the prosecution could have sought other witnesses who could have described China as a “threat to national security”.

However, Mr Little said the limitations of Mr Collins’ testimony would have derailed the case, regardless of what others said.

Labor MP Emily Thornberry asked why prosecutors could not have trusted a jury to conclude that China could be considered a threat.

Mr Parkinson argued that, without Mr Collins’ key evidence, a judge would not have allowed the case to go to trial.

Mr Collins submitted his first witness statement in December 2023, after which prosecutors decided they had enough evidence to charge Mr Cash and Mr Berry under the Official Secrets Act of 1911.

However, Mr Parkinson said a ruling in a separate court case in 2024 had changed the requirements for necessary evidence and so prosecutors had asked Mr Collins to provide further witness statements, in the hope he would label China a “threat to national security”.

In two other statements, Mr Collins detailed the threats China poses in cyberspace and to the UK’s democratic institutions, but avoided calling the country a “threat to national security”.

The failed case sparked a political row over who was to blame. The Conservatives accused the Labor government of allowing the deal to fail because it wanted to foster better relations with Beijing.

However, the government said ministers had no role in providing evidence in the case and that Mr Collins was giving evidence based on the policy of the Conservative government at the time.

On Wednesday the committee will hear evidence from Attorney General Lord Hermer and Chief Minister Darren Jones.