The government’s national security adviser had no involvement in the prosecution being dropped against two British men accused of spying for China, a senior cabinet minister has said.
Jonathan Powell had no connection to discussions about the “substance or the evidence” of the case, Bridget Phillipson said on Sunday, adding that Keir Starmer had full confidence in him.
Powell’s role has been under intense scrutiny since it emerged that the sudden abandonment of the prosecution in September appeared to be because Starmer’s government was unwilling to say that China posed a threat to UK national security, a decision to which Powell would appear to be central.
According to reports, the cases against Christopher Cash, a parliamentary researcher, and Christopher Berry, a researcher based in China, were dropped after Powell said China would not be described as an enemy in any trial – considered necessary for a successful prosecution under the Official Secrets Act.
Cash and Berry deny accusations that they provided information about Westminster to China’s politburo.
Under the updated national security strategy released in June, China was listed as a “geostrategic challenge” rather than an enemy.
Appearing on the BBC’s Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg show, Phillipson was asked why the case had lapsed. She said: “Obviously, the Crown Prosecution Service are best placed to explain why they were not able to bring forward a prosecution, but what I can be absolutely clear about is that ministers and others, including the national security adviser, had no role to play in either the substance of the case or the evidence in question.”
Speaking earlier on Sky News’s Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips, the education secretary was asked for assurances that Powell took no part in the decision. “Yes, I can give that assurance,” Phillipson replied. “We’re very disappointed that the CPS were not able to take forward the prosecution.”
Asked if the prime minister still had full confidence in Powell, she said he did.
The centrality of government decision-making emerged last week when Stephen Parkinson, the director of public prosecutions, wrote to the chairs of two parliamentary select committees to say that the case was dropped after ministers and officials declined to set out that Beijing represented a “threat to the national security of the UK”, despite what he called “many months” of efforts.
This is key because of case law relating to the Official Secrets Act, which emerged after Cash and Berry were charged. This, connected to the separate trial of six Bulgarian nationals found guilty of spying for Russia, clarified that under the act, a country must be a threat to the UK’s national security at the time of the offence, prompting the need for clarification from the government.
Phillipson told the BBC that because some of the legal changes dated back to 2023, it was a matter for the previous Conservative government. “I’m not making a partisan point when I say this, but there was a different government in office then,” she said.
Speaking on the same programme, Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, said: “I’d say it’s utter nonsense and that’s a bold statement from her. I was home secretary for over three years and we were absolutely crystal clear that China was a threat, an adversary.”
