UK (Parliament Politics Magazine) – Attorney General Lord Hermer said the China spy case collapsed due to outdated laws, describing the Official Secrets Act as “not fit for purpose.”
As reported by The Independent, the Attorney General blamed the collapse of the alleged Chinese spy case on outdated UK espionage laws, calling them “not fit for purpose.”
What did Lord Hermer say about the China spy case?
Lord Hermer said prosecutors tried in “good faith” to convict Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry, but the 1911 Official Secrets Act posed major obstacles.
The government’s top law officer said the case would have reached trial if laws had been updated during the alleged 2021–2023 offences.
Speaking to the Joint Committee on National Security, Lord Hermer said the term ‘enemy’ in the Act created challenges for prosecutors.
He stated,
“Standing back in this case, where’s the problem? What is it, because I think we should all be concerned to try and identify what lessons can be learnt.”
The attorney general said,
“I’m clear in my mind that certainly one very significant problem here was the Act. The Act wasn’t fit for purpose, it was out of date.”
According to Lord Hermer, the National Security Act 2023 removed the earlier obstacle, focusing solely on whether “information was passed to a foreign power.”
He told the committee,
“Speaking frankly, I don’t understand why it took Parliament so long to pass that. Had that Act been in force at the relevant time for this case, between (2021-23), I have no doubt that the prosecution would have proceeded to trial.”
The law officer warned against calling the case “farcical” or a “mistake.”
Lord Hermer stated,
“It is easy, particularly when we are all so disappointed about the outcome of this case, it is a little easy to kind of jump to conclusions that may prove to be unfair. Now I don’t think that mismatch need be categorised as a mistake or farcical.”
He added,
“You’re absolutely right to be looking at it, but I wouldn’t rush to say that. These are all people working incredibly hard to try and get this prosecution over the line.”
The Attorney General insisted he did not influence the decision to halt the prosecution, citing constitutional principles.
Lord Hermer told MPs he expected the prosecution to continue until a September 3 meeting with Stephen Parkinson, the DPP, when he learned the case would be dropped.
He told the committee,
“When I’m informed, which is in the late morning of Sep 3, it was conveyed to me as a decision has been taken. I am told that the DPP would also inform the Cabinet Secretary that day. I’m asked to keep that information confidential, there’s nothing unusual in that in terms of information that’s provided to me by the DPP.”
Lord Hermer said,
“I’m told the next day that as a result of the conversation with the Cabinet Secretary there’s going to be further discussion with the witness Mr Collins. I’m told I think a few days after that, that has taken place but the decision remained.”
He stated,
“I am extremely concerned about the impact that this case has on public faith in our national security structures and in our criminal justice system insofar as it intersects with that.”
The government’s top officer said,
“It’s also why I may say why I deprecate some of the baseless accusations that were levelled against the Prime Minister and against our national security adviser Mr Powell when the decision of the prosecution was announced that seek to suggest that politicians had somehow improperly interfered in this case to stop a prosecution.”
He added,
“Effectively allegations that they were perverting the course of justice against the national security interests of this country. Now those are disgraceful allegations to make without evidence. They were baseless.”
What did Lord Carlile say about CPS errors in the China spy case?
Cabinet minister Darren Jones will appear before the committee to give evidence. In his written submission, Mr Jones said no minister or special adviser was involved in the evidence from Deputy National Security Adviser Matt Collins.
The CPS said Mr Collins’s refusal to label China a “threat” or “active threat” stopped the case from progressing.
Earlier this week, Mr. Collins told the committee he outlined a “range of threats” from Beijing but did not call China a “generic threat,” reflecting the Tory government’s stance.
The JCNSS released a letter from Lord Alex Carlile KC, sharply criticising the DPP and CPS.
Lord Carlile, ex-criminal barrister and independent reviewer, slammed the DPP for “an incorrect decision” in concluding there was insufficient evidence to prosecute.
He said Mr Parkinson “failed to assess the evidence” and should have charged Mr Cash and Mr Berry with attempted espionage if any doubts remained.
Lord Carlile added, these were “major mistakes and have damaged confidence in the Crown Prosecution Service.”
What did Darren Jones say about Jonathan Powell’s appointment?
Darren Jones said there is no “inherent problem” with Jonathan Powell’s appointment as national security adviser.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster praised Mr Powell as “one of the best people for the position.”
Mr Jones stated,
“If you think about Jonathan Powell I think everybody would say he is one of the best people we have in our country to perform this role so the Prime Minister wanted to appoint him to do it.”
He said,
“We are very grateful to have Jonathan’s expertise and skills available to us as a government, and he’s added enormous value to our work.”
Mr Jones added,
“I don’t think there’s any suggestion here that Jonathan Powell’s appointment as the national security adviser or the Cabinet Secretary not coming from the national security background is an inherent problem in this case and therefore should be considered differently in the future.”
What is the case against Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry?
Christopher Cash, a former parliamentary researcher, and Christopher Berry, an academic, were charged with violating the Official Secrets Act. They were accused of gathering and communicating information that could be “useful to an enemy.”
The Crown Prosecution Service dropped the case because the evidence no longer met the required legal standard. This was due to a legal technicality.
The government faces backlash from opposition parties over the case collapse, with the attorney general blaming outdated laws for failing to charge both accused.
