The collapsed China spy case was a regrettable incident: lessons must be learnt for the future
(imageBROKER.com / Alamy)
4 min read
After nearly a decade as an MP, I was shocked at the collapse of the prosecution of two men accused of spying on MPs for China.
In the following weeks, there was mounting public concern about the circumstances of the decision to drop the case. What had happened? And why were there so many questions about improper influence and suggestions of a cover-up?
The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, which I chair, is there to assess whether the government’s processes for national security decision making are up to scratch.
It’s highly unusual for a committee to look into specific cases like this one. But given the scale of public concern, it was in the public interest for Parliament to ask searching questions. We therefore launched an inquiry to examine the timeline of events, bring transparency and establish what lessons could be learnt.
We explored allegations that the case collapsed due to a deliberate high-level effort to sabotage the prosecution (or quietly allow it to fail) in order to avoid confrontation with Beijing. We also explored suggestions that it collapsed due to poor processes and questionable decision making.
We heard detailed evidence from those at the heart of the case, including the director of public prosecutions; the deputy national security adviser; the cabinet secretary; the Attorney General and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. We took further evidence from external experts and former post-holders.
As widely reported, we did not find any evidence of a co-ordinated high-level effort to bring about the collapse of the prosecution. Nor did we find evidence of deliberate efforts to obstruct the prosecution, circumvent constitutional safeguards or frustrate our inquiry.
We did, however, find that the process was muddled, chaotic and occasionally shambolic. Expectations between the Cabinet Office and the Crown Prosecution Service were misaligned. Communications were inadequate. Some decisions were questionable. Opportunities to change course were missed. The pace of some processes was peculiarly slow. Some of the safeguards designed to keep criminal proceedings independent of government and party politics somehow ended up contributing to a crisis in public confidence.
The root of the problem clearly lies in a set of laws designed for a pre-First World War era
We also repeatedly heard that the collapse of the case was directly due to the outdated legislation used: the Official Secrets Act 1911. Senior lawyers and ministers told us that the National Security Act 2023 would have prevented this if it had been in force at the time.
I sympathise with this argument; the root of the problem clearly lies in a set of laws designed for a pre-First World War era. But this does not offer this government, or the next, a get-out-of-jail-free card. There are structural similarities in the offences in the new legislation that could create comparable problems in the future. And as our world becomes increasingly unstable, I expect contentious national security prosecutions to become more frequent.
Our report makes several recommendations to ensure this debacle is not repeated.
Misalignment on expectations – particularly what evidence could be secured, and in what capacity the government witness was giving evidence – played a key role in the case’s collapse. We recommend a formal case conference to be held within 30 days of charges being brought to help identify any potential issues with evidence from the outset.
The government should also work with legal partners such as the Crown Prosecution Service to develop formal principles for handling and communications around sensitive cases. This should help reduce the risk of future misaligned expectations.
We also raised concerns about how exposed the deputy national security adviser was in the Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry case. We’re calling on the Cabinet Office to review the responsibilities of the deputy national security advisers and the support structures that surround them. These public servants are often deeply experienced, but the nature of being a witness in these sorts of prosecutions can also leave them isolated with limited support and oversight structures. That needs to change.
This experience has been highly regrettable. I hope our inquiry provides a framework to help everyone move on and learn lessons for the future.
Matt Western is Labour MP for Warwick and Leamington, and chair of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy
