Key figures involved in the failed criminal case against two men accused of spying for China have given conflicting accounts to a parliamentary committee about why the case collapsed.
In September, prosecutors dropped charges against Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry, who had been charged under the Official Secrets Act. Both men deny any wrongdoing.
The director of public prosecutions, Stephen Parkinson, had said charges were dropped because the government’s deputy national security adviser, Matt Collins, was unwilling to classify Beijing as an active threat to national security.
However, Mr Collins told the committee he had been given legal advice that his evidence would be “enough”.
He said he always knew the case would be “a challenge” but that he had been “trying to ensure that we could support a successful prosecution”.
Mr Collins – who was set to be the government’s witness in the trial – added: “And so I was somewhat surprised when I was told on 3 September that the intention was to drop the case.”
In contrast Tom Little KC – who would have been the lead prosecuting barrister in the case – said he would be “surprised” if Mr Collins had not realised the prosecution would collapsed unless he offered further evidence.
Earlier in the session, Mr Little had said Mr Collins “was clear to me that he would not say that China posed an active threat to national security at the material time”.
“That was in answer to what I regard as the million dollar question in the case, and once he had said that the current prosecution for those charges was effectively unsustainable.”
Asked by the committee about the evidence he provided, Mr Collins said: “What I was able to say is that China poses a range of threats to our national security.
“I was able to say that these include espionage threats, cyber threats, threats to our democratic institutions, threats to our economic security.
“I would be able to say that these threats are very real and persistent, and the operational partners are dealing with them on a daily basis.”