Attorney general hits out at ‘disgraceful allegations’ made towards PM in China spy case
The attorney general has hit out at “shameful allegations” against the prime minister and national security adviser following the collapse of the Chinese spying case and admitted he is “extremely concerned” about the impact the case will have on public confidence in national security.
Lord Richard Hermer told a parliamentary committee that suggestions that “politicians had somehow inappropriately intervened in this case to stop a prosecution” had been made “without evidence”.
MPs and Lords received evidence from the attorney general and Cabinet Office minister Darren Jones on Wednesday as part of the investigation into the collapse of the case against Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry.
The pair, who have denied wrongdoing, were accused of passing secrets to Beijing, but the case against them collapsed in recent weeks when the Crown Prosecution Service decided there was insufficient evidence to secure a conviction.
No 10 faced questions about why Sir Keir Starmer did not intervene when the CPS said it would withdraw the case, but said earlier this month it would have been “absurd” for him to do so and intervene in the case.
Addressing the national security strategy committee on Wednesday, Lord Hermer said: “I am extremely concerned about the impact of this case, to the extent that it intersects with this one, on public confidence in our national security structures and our criminal justice system.
“That’s why I welcome the work of this committee, which is why I welcome parliament’s scrutiny.”
He added: “That is why I reject some of the baseless accusations made against the Prime Minister and our national security adviser, Mr. Powell. […] “The prosecution’s verdict has been announced, seeking to argue that politicians somehow improperly intervened in this case to halt a prosecution, effectively perverting the course of justice against the national security interests of this country.”
He called these “disgraceful allegations made without evidence.”
The government faced questions about the story and the evidence presented by deputy national security adviser Matt Collins.
Attention focused on Mr. Collins’ statements; The CPS said its refusal to explicitly name China a “threat” or “active threat” to national security meant the prosecution could not proceed.
On Monday, Mr Collins said he had presented evidence of a “range of threats” posed by Beijing but did not describe the country as a “general” threat because that was not the position of the Tory government, which was in power at the time of the alleged crimes.
Lord Hermer told the committee he had “no doubt” the prosecution would have been brought to trial if the legislation had been up to date.
Pointing to the Official Secrets Act, he said: “So where is the problem? What is the problem, because I think we should all try to identify what lessons can be learned.”
“I was clear that one of the key issues here was absolutely action. The law was not fit for purpose; it was outdated.”
He said Parliament was right to pass the National Security Act of 2023, which eliminates the problems faced by prosecutors in the case and means only that “the transfer of information to a foreign power” must be proven.
“Frankly I do not understand why it has taken parliament so long to pass this. Had this legislation been in force at the relevant time for this case, 21-23, I have no doubt that the prosecution would have proceeded with the trial.”
