Refusal to describe China as a threat 'fatal' to spying case

The refusal of the government to describe China as an active threat to national security in its evidence was a “total roadblock” to the progression of a case against two alleged spies, the prosecution’s lead barrister has said.

- MILLIE COOKE

Tom Little KC told MPs and peers on the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy (JCNSS) that the question of whether or not China was a threat to national security was “the milliondollar question in the case” and the failure to describe it as one “brought this case effectively to a crashing halt”.

Meanwhile, director of public prosecutions (DPP) Stephen Parkinson suggested that deputy national security adviser Matt Collins, who gave evidence on behalf of the government, knew the case would collapse if he did not offer evidence that China was a threat.

“It was made clear that the evidence we sought was critical,” Mr Parkinson told MPs and peers. “The language used was: ‘We don’t want to get into a situation in which the case is dismissed at halftime’.

“At the very latest, [Mr Collins] would have understood this because at the meeting on 9 September, it had been made plain that the case could not proceed because he was unable to give the positive answer that had been sought.”

He said the failure to say China was an active threat to national security was “fatal” to the case.

The collapse of the case against Christopher Cash, a former parliamentary researcher, and Christopher Berry - who both denied charges under the Official Secrets Act – has raised questions about Britain’s willingness to confront China as Sir Keir Starmer’s government looks to build closer ties with the country.