Starmer’s team had access to ‘multiple’ papers showing China threat – Philp

Sir Keir Starmer’s team had access to “multiple” documents which proved China was a national security risk before the collapse of a spying trial, the shadow home secretary has claimed.

Chris Philp claimed the Government could have handed these papers over to prosecutors, but they “chose not to”.

Instead, the Government “destroyed the prosecution” of two men accused of spying for Beijing, Mr Philp wrote in The Times.

The case against 30-year-old Christopher Cash, a former parliamentary researcher, and 33-year-old Christopher Berry, a teacher, was dropped last month.

Mr Cash and Mr Berry were charged by the CPS in April last year with spying under the Official Secrets Act 1911, when they were accused of collecting and communicating information which could be “useful to an enemy”.

They both denied the charges.

Sir Keir has maintained that because the last Conservative administration had not designated China as a threat to national security, his Government could not provide evidence to that effect, which the director of public prosecutions (DPP) Stephen Parkinson said was required to meet the threshold for prosecution.

Mr Parkinson had blamed ministers for failing to provide the crucial evidence needed to proceed, saying the CPS had tried “over many months” to gather material.

Mr Philp wrote: “The DPP is calling out the Government.

“Keir Starmer’s excuse is that the previous government did not publicly categorise China as a threat to national security.

“There is no delicate way to say this: what the Prime Minister said is totally untrue — and anyway it is not the legal test.”

Mr Philp, who was a Home Office minister between October 2022 and July 2024, added: “The Government has multiple internal documents and reports on the threat China posed to national security in the 2021-23 period.

“I have spoken to colleagues who served as relevant ministers then and they have told me these documents exist.

“As a former minister, I know it myself from my time in Government.

“The Government has plenty of information on the threat to national security from China seeking to acquire sensitive technologies through nefarious means, including during the relevant time.

“Starmer’s Government could have disclosed these documents to the CPS, in private if needed. It chose not to.

“It instead destroyed the prosecution by refusing to disclose the evidence the CPS needed – evidence the Government has in its possession – and instead provided unhelpful witness statements.”

Speaking at a press conference in India on Thursday, Prime Minister Sir Keir said he “can be absolutely clear, no ministers were involved in any of the decisions since this Government’s been in, in relation to the evidence that’s put before the court on this issue”.

He said: “It’s not a party political point. It’s a matter of law.

“You can only try someone on the basis of the situation as it was at the time of the alleged offence.

“You can’t try them on the basis of the situation as it might evolve, weeks, months, years down the line. That’s a fundamental and that’s at the centre of this particular issue.”

Crossbench peer Lord Sedwill, who served as national security adviser from 2017 to 2020, during which time he was also Britain’s most senior civil servant, said he was “genuinely puzzled” about the collapse of the trial.

“The truth is that, of course, China is a national security threat to the UK directly, through cyber, through spying and so on, and indirectly because of some of their aggressive behaviour in the South China Sea and elsewhere,” the former Cabinet Secretary added, speaking on the Crisis Room podcast.

Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has said he is “investigating” the episode.

“I know quite a lot about it now and I don’t think that the public explanation that’s been given so far is at all adequate,” he told LBC.

“I personally find it confusing and I do think that when something like this happens, the public and everyone who was looking at this to say, well, how is the UK going to treat this sort of behaviour by China?

“It deserves a much fuller explanation.”