China spy case collapsed due to ‘systemic failures’, not conspiracy, damning report reveals
The Government and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) have been condemned for “systematic failures” that led to the collapse of the Chinese spy case.
An extraordinary row erupted in September after the trial collapsed, with prosecutors and government officials trying to blame each other after two men accused of spying for Beijing were freed, prompting accusations of a “cover-up”.
The ministers and civil servants have now each taken some of the blame in a damning report by the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy (JCNSS), but have been cleared of involvement in a conspiracy to appease China.
But the committee cautioned against dismissing the case as a “one-off” case arising from old espionage laws, warning that parallels in the new legislation should be considered carefully to prevent a similar problem from happening again.
The report came just 24 hours after Sir Keir Starmer branded China a national security threat in a foreign policy speech at Mansion House but insisted his government must still work with Beijing.
Charges against former parliamentary investigators Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry were dropped after the CPS said it had received no evidence from the government characterizing China as a national security threat. Both men deny passing secrets to Beijing between 2021 and 2023.
The JCNSS, which launched a highly unusual investigation into the case that collapsed following the row, said in its report on Wednesday: “We appreciate that some of the sequence of events has raised eyebrows.
“We found no evidence of a highly coordinated effort to cause the prosecution to collapse.
“We also found no evidence of intentional efforts to obstruct prosecution, circumvent constitutional safeguards, or impede our investigation.”
Cross-party MPs and colleagues added: “Overall, it is clear that there are serious systemic failures and deficiencies in communication, coordination and decision-making.
“The Crown Prosecution Service could have uncovered or escalated issues much earlier due to misguided expectations. Equally the government team did not have clear enough processes to communicate issues where there was a lack of clarity.”
Attention was focused on a statement by deputy national security adviser (DNSA) Matt Collins, in which he said prosecutors’ refusal to describe Beijing as a “threat” to national security meant the case could not proceed.
Mr Collins said he had presented evidence to the JCNSS of a “range of threats” posed by China but did not describe the country as a “general” threat because that was not the Tory government’s position.
The committee accepted the CPS’ argument that the prosecution’s central expert witness, Mr Collins, would prejudice the case at the hearing if he refused to identify China as an active threat.
However, he said, when all his statements were taken together, “in our view it is clear that they constitute a more general and active threat to the national security of the United Kingdom.”
“We regret that common-sense interpretations of the evidence given in the DNSA witness statements do not provide a sufficiently strong basis to meet the evidential requirements required by the Crown Prosecution Service under the Official Secrets Act 1911,” he said.
The committee said it would not seek to “distinguish” the government’s or CPS’s decisions, but questioned whether lawyers and officials working on Mr Collins’ witness statements had still come up with an “alternative formulation” consistent with the policy.
The court also questioned whether prosecutors were correct in concluding that the legal tests “were not met.”
Questions have previously been raised about the potential for undue influence on the case after national security adviser Jonathan Powell met with officials about the case and diplomatic relations with Beijing just two days before the CPS moved to drop the charges.
But after gathering the evidence, the JCNSS said it “found no evidence of undue influence or deliberate efforts to obstruct prosecution”.
The government said there was no discussion of the evidence during the talks, which were attended by lawyers and covered “a range of scenarios” to “enable us to manage our diplomatic relations”.
The report said communication between the government and the CPS was “inadequate” and there was a “widespread lack of clarity” about the nature of requests and evidence requirements.
During the JCNSS investigation, chief prosecutor Richard Hermer attempted to blame the collapse of the case on “outdated” UK spying laws, which he said were “not fit for purpose”.
Lord Hermer said the use of the term “enemy” in the Official Secrets Act 1911 caused difficulties. The term was later changed in the National Security Act of 2023, so that prosecutors instead had to prove that the information was “transferred to a foreign power.”
The JCNSS acknowledged that the “root cause” of the problems in the collapsed case lay in difficulties with the old law under which the charges were brought.
But he rejected any suggestion that the new law solved the problem, pointing out that there may be “diplomatic sensitivities” about labeling people as members of foreign intelligence agencies.
A CPS spokesman said: “We are aware of the strong interest in this case. We will examine the recommendations carefully and work with our partners to identify where improvements can be made.
“Our decisions are made independently and based on the law and evidence, and this principle is at the heart of our business.”
A government spokesman said: “We welcome the committee’s report, which makes clear that allegations of interference in this case are unfounded and untrue.
“The decision to drop the case was taken independently by the Crown Prosecution Service. We are disappointed that this case did not reach court.
“Protecting national security is our first duty and we will never relent in our efforts to keep the British people safe.”
