Chief prosecutor says top official would not call China an enemy

The Chinese spying case collapsed because a senior national security official failed to say the country was classified as an “enemy” while the Conservatives were in power, the director of prosecutions has said.

In a letter to lawmakers, Stephen Parkinson said Deputy National Security Adviser Matt Collins’ reluctance to say China poses an active threat to national security between 2021 and 2023 was “fatal to the cause.”

Parkinson was under pressure to explain why the two men were accused of espionage and why the case against them collapsed after 16 months without going to trial.

A political blame game has broken out over the case, but the focus has now turned to the role of the authorities. Government witnesses are also expected to question some of the DPP’s written evidence when they appear before a parliamentary committee next week.

In April 2024, Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry were charged under the Official Secrets Act 1911 over allegations they passed information to a Chinese intelligence agent.

They were cleared of all charges in September after the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) withdrew the case. Both men have always denied wrongdoing.

After weeks of pressure, Parkinson, who is chairman of the CPS and director of prosecutions, wrote a long letter to the national security strategy committee before appearing before it on Monday.

It explains why Mr. Cash and Mr. Berry were first charged and how the case was later solved.

The men were first arrested in March 2023 on suspicion of offenses under the Official Secrets Act, and if the case goes before a jury the prosecution will need to prove the defendants engaged in activities “prejudicial to the security or interests of the State”.

Secondly, the jury also needs to be satisfied that the UK government considered China an “enemy” between 2021 and 2023, when the alleged crime occurred.

Prosecutors concluded they needed to show the jury that China was an “enemy,” with the help of expert evidence presented by Deputy National Security Advisor (DNSA) Matt Collins.

As DNSA, Mr Collins is responsible for assessing threats to the UK’s national security.

With advice from his own lawyers and other officials, he began drafting a statement that should focus solely on the then Conservative government’s official, public conclusions (if any) regarding the threat posed by China.

This evidence is separate from any information produced by intelligence services that remains classified.

The final statement detailed the activities of Chinese intelligence agencies and how they sought to obtain information about the political workings of the United Kingdom; however, the word “enemy” was removed when the final version was completed and shared with Downing Street in December 2023.

Dear Mr Collins, In his letter to MPs He said he told police investigating the incident that he could not call China an “enemy” because it “does not reflect government policy.”

In July 2024, a Court of Appeal decision on the legal definition of enemy in a separate case regarding Russian interference in the UK set off alarm bells at the CPS.

The need to provide the jury with a factual explanation as to why a state could be considered an enemy under the Official Secrets Act was highlighted; While the government had made a clear conclusion about Russia, it had not done so for China.

In his letter to MPs, Parkinson said the decision meant the CPS and police had to go back to the DNSA to ask him for more evidence about China.

This evidence was crucial because prosecutors knew the defendant’s lawyers would question whether there was any evidence that Britain viewed China as a threat overall between 2021 and 2023.

In July, the Director of Public Prosecutions team told the Cabinet Office: “To prove guilt the jury must be satisfied that China was an adversary at the time in question.”

“That China is an active espionage threat will not be sufficient without examples that adequately demonstrate the nature and scope of the threat, such as grounding a finding that China is an adversary.”

This led to two critical meetings, which led to the collapse of the case.

At the first meeting on August 14, Mr Collins told the prosecution team: “He said that if asked, he would not state in evidence, either in open court or in private session, that China posed a risk to our national security at that time.”

“Nor will he accept that China was hostile or hostile to the interests of the United Kingdom at the material time,” Mr Parkinson’s letter said.

“He will accept if asked” [at trial]He said China was not an enemy in the ordinary sense of the word and would not answer when asked whether China was an enemy within the meaning of the Official Secrets Act. “He would say it was up to the jury.”

At a meeting on September 9 this year, Mr Collins was told that without such evidence the case would collapse.

Mr Parkinson’s letter says he reiterated to MPs that the official could not provide the evidence they were seeking because it did not reflect the position of the former government.

“DNSA at the conference [Mr Collins] Regarding the 2021-2023 situation, he confirmed that he would not say that China is an active threat.

“Subsequent governments have refused to classify it as such.”

Mr Parkinson told MPs that, given the defense teams knew what Mr Collins had said in his statements, prosecutors were under a duty to call him to give evidence at the trial and that he would be cross-examined.

The CPS was unable to go to the DNSA and chose an alternative witness when it realized it could not provide the facts prosecutors needed.

[The DNSA’s] The reluctance at the time to say that China was an active threat to national security was fatal to the case,” Mr Parkinson said.