Government says Attorney General was not involved in collapsed China spy case

The Attorney General was not involved in the case of the China spying case in Parliament, the Government has said, as it hit out at “baseless smears” from the Conservatives.

Solicitor General Ellie Reeves said no law officer was involved in the case after April 3 2024, when charges were brought against Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry.

Ms Reeves said it would have been “wholly inappropriate” for Baron Richard Hermer to have had a role, as she repeated the independence of the Crown Prosecution Service from Government interference.

MPs heard from shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick that Lord Hermer had been told the case was on the brink of collapse in August. He accused the peer of “allowing the case to die” rather than saving it.

Responding to an urgent question, Ms Reeves said: “There are a limited number of offences, including those under the Official Secrets Act, in which Parliament has made statutory provision requiring the Attorney General’s consent to prosecute in individual cases.

“In doing so, the law officer acts in a quasi-judicial capacity, independently of Government, and applies the same two-stage test as the code.

“Consent was given by my predecessors on April 3 2024. Following that date, no law officer intervened in the case at any stage. It would have been wholly inappropriate for the law officers to do so. Once consent is given, then the law officer plays no ongoing role.”

She continued: “The ongoing disinformation around the collapse of this case are now distracting from the most important issue we should all be focused on, how the Government will work across parties and with the UK law enforcement community to ensure that Chinese espionage and interference is not successful in the UK.”

Lord Hermer will give evidence to the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy (JCNSS) next week, along with Sir Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson and deputy national security adviser Matthew Collins.

Mr Jenrick had asked why Lord Hermer had not provided the necessary evidence for the case to go ahead, and asked for details of meetings when he had been told.

He said: “The Attorney General and the Government had a decision to make, whether to provide the evidence or not. Even if they thought it was excessive to do so.

“The Attorney General must have understood what was required. We are told he is an eminent lawyer, so what did he do the moment he knew? Who did he inform within Government and when? Did he inform the Prime Minister, or his office? Did he take any steps to ensure the evidence was provided?”

He added: “The (Attorney General) knew the case was going to collapse in August. He knew what was required to save it. But unless she can provide a compelling account today, we must all conclude that (he), on behalf of the Government, chose not to provide it.

“He may not have killed the case, but he allowed it to die.”

Ms Reeves replied: “Today we’ve heard from the shadow justice secretary yet more of the baseless smears which have characterised the Conservative Party’s approach to this matter of such importance to this House and the whole nation.”

She further looked to apportion blame with the Conservative Party, and said it did not carry out reforms when the party was in power.

Ms Reeves said: “Part of the reasons we find ourselves in this situation is because the Conservative Party spent their years in government, fighting amongst themselves and not fixing glaring holes in our national security laws.”

Former Conservative security minister Tom Tugendhat, who Mr Cash worked for, asked why a witness statement from Mr Collins had quoted the Labour Party manifesto if there had been no political interference.

“Either he’s giving evidence on the basis of the Government’s view between 2021 and 2023 in which case the Labour Party manifesto is irrelevant. Or, he’s reflecting the view of the Government post-2024, in which case, the quotation of the Labour Party manifesto is relevant. Which is it?”

Ms Reeves said the most extensive witness statement was made under the Conservative government.

She added: “It is right that the deputy national security adviser gave that evidence free from any political inference, as has been confirmed numerous times in this House already.”