Jonathan Powell made no decisions about evidence in China spy case, minister says

The government’s national security adviser Jonathan Powell has not made any decisions about the content of any evidence presented in the collapsed case against two men accused of spying for China, a minister said.

Prosecutors unexpectedly dropped charges against Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry, who denied the allegations in September.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch claimed the case collapsed because the government refused to give “vital information” to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) because it wanted to “do a favour” to China.

Security Minister Jarvis dismissed claims that the government deliberately collapsed the case as “unfounded”.

Mr Powell, one of the Prime Minister’s most senior advisers and political allies, faces pressure over whether he played a role in the collapse of the case, while the Conservatives say he has “questions to answer”.

Sir Keir Starmer insisted he has “full confidence” in his national security adviser, telling broadcasters: “He is doing an excellent job.”

Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry, a former parliamentary investigator, were charged under the Official Secrets Act in April 2024, when the Conservatives were in power.

They were accused of collecting and providing information harmful to the security and interests of the state between December 2021 and February 2023.

But last week the CPS chief said the case collapsed because the government could not obtain evidence calling China a national security threat.

Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson said that although there was sufficient evidence when charges were first laid against the two men in April 2024, the precedent set by another espionage case earlier this year meant China should have been labeled a “threat to national security” at the time of the alleged crimes.

In a statement to MPs in the House of Commons, Jarvis denied reports that Mr Powell had ruled that China could not be designated as a national security threat at a meeting with Whitehall officials in September, shortly before the charges were dropped.

“Certainly, [the national security adviser] Participates in discussions regarding national security and diplomatic relations. “This is literally his job,” he said.

“But all discussions were on the basis of how the case would proceed and how its consequences would be handled.

“The national security advisor was not involved in any decisions regarding the content of the evidence.”

Jarvis said under the previous Conservative government it was deputy national security adviser Matthew Collins who gave witness evidence in December 2023, and further witness statements were requested and submitted in February and July of this year.

He said Mr Collins was given “full freedom to give evidence without interference”, adding: “Ministers and special advisers did not decide on this evidence and there was no reference to it in the context.”

Jarvis said all the evidence presented was based on the law and the Conservative government’s attitude towards China at the time of the alleged crimes.

He added that the decision on whether to prosecute was made by the CPS, which was “hampered by outdated legislation”.

The Official Secrets Act of 1911 was replaced by the National Security Act of 2023, which Jarvis said closed “the loopholes that this particular case has exposed.”

“Suggestions that the government suppressed evidence, recused witnesses, or restricted witnesses from accessing certain evidence are all false,” he said.

” [deputy national security adviser] He did not materially alter his evidence and was not under any pressure from anyone to do so…

“What has changed is the CPS’s assessment of the case law.”

Jarvis sought to blame the previous Tory government for not classifying China as a threat to national security and for being too “slow” to update national security laws.

Defending his party’s record, Badenoch highlighted a number of examples in which Conservative ministers and government documents described China as a “threat”.

“The case collapsed because the government had been refusing to give vital information to the CPS for months,” he said.

“This was not a mistake. This was not a misunderstanding. This appears to have been a deliberate decision to collapse the case and curry favor with the regime in China.”

He added: “I suspect that [ministers] “We decided that closer economic ties with China are more important than due process and our national security.”

The Liberal Democrats called on the government to “explain why this case collapsed” and to publish all correspondence between the deputy national security adviser and the CPS.

Calum Miller, the party’s foreign affairs spokesman, said: “The government’s attempts to evade scrutiny and scapegoat a single official will simply not work.

“It is incredible that neither Keir Starmer nor his national security adviser knew what evidence was presented in such an important case.

“Responsibility for this fiasco ultimately falls on the prime minister.”