Hermer blames collapse of China spy case on law ‘not fit for purpose’

The Attorney General has blamed the collapse of the alleged Chinese spying case on “out of date” UK espionage laws which he said were “not fit for purpose”.

Lord Richard Hermer said prosecutors had worked in “good faith” seeking to secure convictions against Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry – who deny wrongdoing – but the Official Secrets Act 1911 posed a “very significant problem”.

The Government’s top law officer said he had “no doubt” the case would have gone to trial if legislation had been updated during the period of alleged offending between 2021 and 2023.

And he accused political opponents of making “baseless” and “disgraceful” claims that ministers had interfered with the process, arguing that to do so would have amounted to perverting the course of justice.

Appearing before Parliament’s Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy (JCNSS) on Wednesday, Lord Hermer said the use of the term “enemy” in the Official Secrets Act threw up difficulties for prosecutors.

He said: “Standing back in this case, where’s the problem? What is it, because I think we should all be concerned to try and identify what lessons can be learnt.

“I’m clear in my mind that certainly one very significant problem here was the Act. The Act wasn’t fit for purpose, it was out of date.”

Mr Cash, a former parliamentary researcher, and Mr Berry were accused of passing secrets to Beijing, but the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) dropped the charges over concerns there was not enough evidence.

Attention has focused on the statements of deputy national security adviser Matt Collins, with prosecutors saying his refusal to describe Beijing as a “threat” to national security meant could not continue.

On Monday, the senior official said he had provided evidence of a “range of threats” posed by China but had not described the country as a “generic” threat because that was not the position of the then-Tory government.

Lord Hermer said the National Security Act 2023 had addressed problems with the Official Secrets Act by replacing the term “enemy” with a requirement for prosecutors to prove merely that information had been “passed to a foreign power”.

He told the committee on Wednesday: “Speaking frankly, I don’t understand why it took Parliament so long to pass that.

“Had that Act been in force at the relevant time for this case, between (2021-23), I have no doubt that the prosecution would have proceeded to trial.”

The senior Government figure also suggested that Tory leader Kemi Badenoch’s assertion when she was business secretary that Beijing should not be described as a “foe” would have undermined the prosecution case at trial.

He said defence barristers could have raised this statement in cross-examination, which Mr Collins would have had to accept in his evidence.

However, Lord Hermer urged against concluding that the collapse of the case had been “farcical” or a “mistake”.

He said: “It is easy, particularly when we are all so disappointed about the outcome of this case, it is a little easy to kind of jump to conclusions that may prove to be unfair.

“Now I don’t think that mismatch need be categorised as a mistake or farcical.

“You’re absolutely right to be looking at it, but I wouldn’t rush to say that. These are all people working incredibly hard to try and get this prosecution over the line.”

He hit out at suggestions that politicians had improperly intervened in the prosecution and said he welcomed parliamentary scrutiny of the case, telling the JCNSS: “Those are disgraceful allegations to make without evidence.

“They were baseless, as the evidence of the DPP and the Cabinet Secretary have made plain.”

Lord Hermer has said he had no role in the decision to drop the prosecution, arguing it would have been “contrary to our constitutional values” for him to have interfered with the move.

He said he had expected the prosecution would go ahead until a meeting on September 3 with Stephen Parkinson, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), at which he was informed the case would be dropped.

Lord Hermer told the committee he “engaged in a discussion” with Mr Parkinson to “understand his decision” but did not “intervene in the case or give any direction” to Mr Parkinson.

Nor did he inform other Cabinet ministers until the CPS had informed the police and the defendants that the case would be discontinued.

The committee also heard from Cabinet Office minister Darren Jones.

In written evidence, Mr Jones had told the committee no minister or special adviser had any involvement in the provision of evidence by deputy national security adviser Mr Collins.

On Tuesday, the JCNSS published a letter from Lord Alex Carlile KC that strongly criticised the DPP and the CPS.

Lord Carlile, a former criminal barrister and independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said the DPP had made “an incorrect decision” in concluding there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the case.

He said Mr Parkinson “failed to assess the evidence correctly” and, in any case, should have charged Mr Cash and Mr Berry with attempting to commit espionage if he was still in doubt.

Lord Carlile concluded these were “major mistakes and have damaged confidence in the Crown Prosecution Service”.

Labour MPs voted down an attempt on Tuesday by the Conservatives to force the Government to release correspondence relating to the case.

Cabinet Office minister Nick Thomas-Symonds said it was in Britain’s interest to “protect” the material sought by the Tories,” prompting shadow home secretary Chris Philp to accuse Labour of voting to “carry on the cover-up”.