Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
The UK government and prosecutors have been heavily criticised over the collapse of a China spying case in an official report that described some of their actions as “shambolic”.
The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, which has been reviewing the collapse of the case against two British men accused of spying on MPs for China, said its investigation had found that “systemic failures” contributed to the failure in bringing a prosecution.
The report found the process between the government and the Crown Prosecution Service was “beset by confusion and misaligned expectations”.
It added: “Some aspects are best described as shambolic.”
The report said, however, that it “did not find evidence” of “a co-ordinated high-level effort to collapse the prosecution, nor of deliberate efforts to obstruct it.” This, in effect, cleared the government of the most serious charge laid by critics.
The case against Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry collapsed in September after the government was unwilling or unable to define China as an “enemy” or “national security threat” in evidence for the CPS. Both men have always denied any wrongdoing.
The case was brought under the Official Secrets Act of 1911, which has since been superseded by the National Security Act due to inherent flaws in the old legislation, such as the need to define a country as an enemy that would enable a prosecution.
The case’s collapse led to allegations that Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s government had undermined the prosecution as it tried to build trade ties with Beijing, something Downing Street has always denied.
“We found no evidence of a co-ordinated effort to collapse or obstruct the prosecution,” said the chair of the joint committee Matt Western.
“However, we did find some decisions questionable, and some of the processes looked shambolic.”
The report said the mishandling of the case between the government and CPS “generated extensive public concern for weeks”.
The report cautioned against treating the issue as a one-off and made a number of recommendations, including for improving communications between the government and CPS.
It also said the process for gathering evidence was too slow and that concerns about cases should be raised in a more timely fashion “to reduce the risk of misaligned expectations at a late stage”.
It also suggested that both the CPS and government must, in future, be clear from the outset about the capacity in which a witness was acting, a reference to the deputy national security adviser Matt Collins, a civil servant tasked with providing the government’s evidence in the case.
During the controversy the government published the evidence that Collins had provided, which outlined a number of threats China posed to national security. However, it stopped short of calling it a “national security threat” because this was not the policy of either the Conservative or Labour governments at the time.
The report said the committee was “surprised that the Crown Prosecution Service considered the evidence available insufficient to survive a submission of ‘no case to answer’ and to be put before the jury”.
The committee also criticised the government for potentially putting Collins in an impossible situation, saying they “remain uncertain about the capacity in which the DNSA was giving evidence, and the extent to which civil servants can act as witnesses of fact on matters that are not made explicit by government policy”.
The report said the CPS should “also reflect on the issues which may arise from relying on a sole witness for high-profile and diplomatically sensitive cases”, while the Cabinet Office should “review what support mechanisms are made available” to “ensure that the deputy national security advisers are not left isolated or facing undue exposure”.
The government said it welcomed the report “that makes clear that allegations about interference in this case were baseless and untrue”.
“The decision to drop the case was taken independently by the Crown Prosecution Service. We remain disappointed that this case did not reach trial,” the government added.
Western said the government “must show the public that it is confident in standing up to adversaries when required: failing to do so will corrode public trust in our institutions”.
The report said the “episode reflects poorly on the otherwise commendable efforts across public servants to keep this country safe.”
