Key figures in the overarching Collapse of the China Spy Case

Key figures involved in the failed prosecution of two men accused of spying for China have given conflicting accounts to a Parliamentary Committee on why the case collapsed.

In September, prosecutors dropped charges against Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry, who were accused of operating on official secrets. Both men deny wrongdoing.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Stephen Parkinson, said that the case could not progress because the Deputy Government and National Security Adviser, Math Collins, did not want to classify China as an active threat to national security.

However, Mr Collins told the Committee he had been given legal advice that his evidence would be “sufficient”.

He said he knew all along that this case would be “challenging” but that he had been “trying to ensure that we can support a successful prosecutor”.

Mr Collins – who was set to be a government witness in the case – added: “And so I was surprised when I was told on September 3 that the intention was to dismiss the case.”

On the contrary TOM Little KC – Who was Bhood the prosecutor in this case – said he would be “surprised” if Mr. Collins did not realize that the prosecutor would have fallen down without him giving more evidence.

Earlier in the course, Mr Collins said he was clear that he would not say “China posed an active threat to national security”.

“That was answering what I’m answering as the million dollar question in this case, and as soon as he said that the current prosecutor of those costs was not successfully settled,” he added.

He said the case had been brought to a “crashing halt” when Mr Collins revealed the limits of what he would use to say in court.

Asked by the National Security Intelligence Committee about the evidence he gave to prosecutors, Mr Collins said: “What I can say is that China poses threats to our national security.

“I was able to say that this includes cyber threats, cyber threats, threats to our democratic institutions, threats to our economic security.

“I will be able to say that these threats are very real and persistent, and our partners work with them every day.”

He also stated that he believed that the CPS was asking him to “use the generic term that is dangerous, or China is an active threat, which is not in line with government policy at the time”.

Committee members pressed Mr Parkinson and Mr Little why they felt Mr Collins had not provided enough evidence that China could be considered a threat.

Peer Paul Bosteng noted that, in his evidence Mr Collins said “China’s espionage operations threaten the UK’s economic prosperity and stability, as well as the integrity of our democratic institutions”.

He pointed out that this phrase will be enough to show “We are dealing with the enemy”.

Lord Mark Sedwill, former national counsel, if Mr. Collins was able to show the government’s point of view, the prosecutor would have sought other witnesses who could see China “.

However, Mr. Little said the limitations of Mr. Collins’ testimony would have left the case, regardless of what others say.

Labor Labor pp Dame Emily Thornberber Cersing why prosecutors could not rely on a jury to conclude China could not be considered a danger.

Mr Parkinson argued that, without key evidence from Mr Collins, the judge would not allow the case to go to trial.

Mr Collins gave his first Witness statement in December 2023, after which prosecutors decided they had enough evidence to charge Mr Cash and Mr Berry under the Secrets Curac Act 1911.

However, Mr Parkinson said that a decision in a different court period in 2024 changed the requirements of what was the evidence that would have been required and therefore the prosecutors asked Mr Collins to give the Chinese “.

In two additional statements, Mr Collins detailed the threat posed by China to cyberspace and the UK’s democratic institutions but refrained from labeling the country “.

The fallout of the case has caused a political row over who should be blamed. The Conservatives accused the Labor Government of allowing the case to fail because it wanted to promote better relations with Beijing.

However, the government said ministers were unable to provide evidence for the case and Mr Collins was giving evidence based on what Government Policy was doing at the time.

On Wednesday, the Committee will hear evidence from General Lord Hermer and Senior Minister Darren Jones.