Did the government willingly collapse the China spy trial?

In brief:

• A prosecution against two men accused of spying for China between 2021-2023 was dropped after the Crown Prosecution Service said the government failed to provide a statement confirming China was a national security threat at the time of the alleged offenses.
• Keir Starmer blames the previous Conservative government for not designating China as a threat and Kemi Badenoch accuses Starmer's government of deliberately withholding evidence to protect UK-China relations.
• There's allegations that the government tanked the case to protect valuable trade relations with China, but as Emily points out, they may have overthought it: "China doesn't care about these kids - they are pretty cutthroat."

What’s the story?

The China spy trial - a case about two men accused of spying for China, which was dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) - had led to political turmoil in Downing Street as politicians continue to point fingers at who is responsible for the case collapsing.

Keir Starmer blames Rishi Sunak’s previous Conservative government, Kemi Badenoch blames Keir Starmer’s current government, and several people are blaming Jonathan Powell, the government’s National Security Adviser.

“There’s facts and there’s finger-pointing - and at the moment there seems to be a lot more finger-pointing than there are facts,” Jon Sopel says on The News Agents.

The case involves Christopher Cash, a former parliamentary researcher, and Christopher Berry, an academic, who were accused of spying on behalf of Beijing between 2021 and 2023 while working in parliament.

Both men, who deny any wrongdoing, were found not guilty, and although the government claims “every effort was made” to provide evidence to support the case - opponents argue this is not the case.

The CPS said the government had failed to provide a statement that “at the time of the offence China represented a threat to national security”.

“This is becoming a political problem for the government because it is so opaque as to why the trial collapsed,” Lewis Goodall says.

Who is at fault for the China spy trial collapsing?

The head of the CPS said the case collapsed because evidence could not be obtained from the government referring to China as a national security threat - and witness statements did not meet the threshold to prosecute.

But there was plenty of evidence at the time - from the heads of MI5 and MI6, and government statements - that this was not the case.

Keir Starmer blames Rishi Sunak’s Tory government for not designating China as a national security threat at the time that the allegations took place - but many legal experts claim that does not matter, and the case could have been prosecuted in spite of this.

But Lewis argued this is a “nebulous” position and one that’s becoming “increasingly difficult” for Starmer to hold.

“If you're spying for a state, irrespective of whether the government has officially designated it a national security threat, you are spying for a state,” he says.

“A lot of the people who are experts in this legal architecture, therefore don't understand what the government is really saying.”

Across the Commons, leader of the opposition Kemi Badenoch says Starmer’s government intentionally withheld “vital information” from The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in order to “curry favour” with China.

“The accusation has come forth that the government in some way interfered with it because they wanted to protect relations with Beijing,” Lewis explains.

The finger-pointing doesn’t end there.

Dan Jarvis, the security minister, has singled out deputy national security adviser Matthew Collins, saying he was entirely responsible for the evidence given to the CPS in the trial, claiming he was “given full freedom to provide evidence without interference”.

“It seems like the Deputy National Security Advisor is being lined up to be the fall guy,” Jon points out.

What’s The News Agents’ take?

Jon says the case, and the controversy around it, must be placed in the context of the UK’s relationship with China.

“This government, and the last government as well, thought that China poses a national security threat on various different fronts - but also China represents an economic opportunity,” he says.

He adds that the question then becomes; “Does the opportunity of doing more trade with China, and it being an engine of economic growth for the UK outweigh the significance of bringing two people to justice who allegedly spied for China?”

“People are arguing it's clear the economic importance is taking priority over this legal case, and that is why, allegedly, the government has scuppered the case.”

If it is the case that the government tried to make the case collapse, Emily says they went around it the wrong way and “got themselves into a mess”, when there could have been an easier approach.

When a prosecution is brought two questions are asked; is there evidential basis? And is it in the public interest?, according to one of Emily’s legal sources.

“This person said to me that it is quite normal for a government to make these cases go away by asking the question of if it's in the public interest,” Emily says.

“But they didn't do that. They went down the evidential code test instead.”

“I do think that this lawyer has a point. Don't go down the evidential route. If you don't think it's in the public interest to have the trial, just say it wasn't in the public interest. That's how they make things go away,” she adds.

Lewis argues that there may not have even been a need to make the case disappear, and that it could have been prosecuted in spite of China’s economic value to the UK; “What are the Chinese going to do, pull all their investment and massive exports”.

“You can just deal with two people who are accused of spying. I mean, that is a crime to spy on the UK state,” Emily adds.

“China doesn't care about these kids - they are pretty cutthroat about stuff.”

Listen to the latest episode of The News Agents.