“Systemic failures” rather than a conspiracy to sabotage the prosecution led to the collapse of a case against two alleged Chinese spies, a parliamentary inquiry has concluded.
In a damning report, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy (JCNSS) criticised both the Government and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) over a process beset by “confusion and misaligned expectations”.
And it cautioned against dismissing the case as a “one-off” caused by outdated espionage laws, warning that there are parallels in new legislation which must be handled carefully to prevent a similar issue from recurring.
Former parliamentary researcher Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry – who both deny wrongdoing – had been accused of passing secrets to Beijing between 2021 and 2023.
Charges were dropped in September with the CPS saying it could not get evidence from the Government referring to China as a national security threat, prompting opposition accusations of a “cover-up”.
But the JCNSS, which launched a highly unusual investigation into the case following the controversy, found no evidence of deliberate or co-ordinated attempts to block the prosecution.
The cross-party group of MPs and peers said in a report on Wednesday: “We appreciate that the sequence of some events has raised eyebrows.
“We did not find evidence of a co-ordinated high-level effort to bring about the collapse of the prosecution.
“Nor did we find evidence of deliberate efforts to obstruct the prosecution, circumvent constitutional safeguards or frustrate our inquiry.”
However, the committee added: “Overall it is clear that there were serious systemic failures and deficiencies in communications, co-ordination and decision-making.
“The Crown Prosecution Service could have surfaced or escalated issues over misaligned expectations much earlier.
“The Government team likewise did not have sufficiently clear processes for escalating issues where there was a lack of clarity.”
Attention had focused on a statement by deputy national security adviser (DNSA) Matt Collins, with prosecutors saying his refusal to describe Beijing as a “threat” to national security meant the case could not continue.
Mr Collins told the JCNSS 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.
In its findings, the committee acknowledged the CPS’s assertion that it would have undermined the case at trial if Mr Collins, the central expert prosecution witness, refused to describe China as an active threat.
However, it said that taking the senior official’s statements together, “in our view it is plain that… these amounted to a more general active threat to the United Kingdom’s national security”.
“We regret that common sense interpretations of the wording provided in the DNSA’s witness statements were apparently not a sufficiently strong basis for meeting the evidential requirements the Crown Prosecution Service considered necessary under the Official Secrets Act 1911,” it said.
The committee said it would not seek to “unpick” the judgments of the Government or the CPS, but questioned whether counsel and officials working on Mr Collins’ witness statements could not have found “an alternative formulation” that was still in line with policy.
It also questioned whether prosecutors had been right to conclude that the legal tests “remained unmet”.
Questions were previously raised over the potential for undue influence after national security adviser Jonathan Powell held a meeting with officials about the case, and about diplomatic relations with Beijing, just two days before the CPS moved to drop charges.
But after taking evidence the JCNSS said it had considered the proximity of the two events and “did not find evidence of improper influence or deliberate efforts to obstruct the prosecution”.
The Government said there was no discussion of evidence at the talks, which were attended by lawyers and covered a “range of scenarios” to “ensure that we managed our diplomatic relations”.
Elsewhere, the committee said Attorney General Lord Richard Hermer was “not proactive” in the case but “was also not given an opportunity to engage early in a constitutionally appropriate manner”.
“We are satisfied that the Attorney General acted with constitutional propriety,” it said.
There was also an “insufficiently robust” level of senior oversight from the outset, in 2023, “for example from the Cabinet Secretaries and national security advisers”, the committee found.
Communications between the Government and the CPS were “inadequate” and there was a “pervasive lack of clarity” about the nature of requests and evidential requirements, the report says.
During the JCNSS’s inquiry, Lord Hermer sought to blame the collapse of the case on “out of date” UK espionage laws, which he said were “not fit for purpose”.
He said the use of the term “enemy” in the Official Secrets Act 1911 threw up difficulties, which was replaced in the National Security Act 2023 with a requirement for prosecutors to prove merely that information had been “passed to a foreign power”.
The JCNSS accepted the “root cause” of the problems with the collapsed case lay in the difficulties with the older law, under which the charges had been brought.
But it rejected any suggestion that the new legislation had entirely solved the problem, pointing out that there may be “diplomatic sensitivities” around labelling people members of a foreign intelligence service.
In its recommendations, the committee urged the Cabinet Office and security services to work with the CPS to formalise principles for handling sensitive cases within the next six months.
It also recommended establishing a new rule for a formal case “conference” within 30 days of such charges being brought in order to avoid such a “lack of clarity” over the evidence in future.
“We urge the Government to avoid characterising the failure of the Cash/Berry case as a one-off peculiarity created solely by outdated legislation: there are structural parallels in the National Security Act 2023 which will require careful handling to avoid comparable issues recurring,” the committee said.
A CPS spokesperson said: “We recognise the strong interest in this case. We will review the recommendations carefully and work with partners to identify where improvements can be made.
“Our decisions are made independently and based on law and evidence, and that principle remains at the heart of our work.”
A Government spokesperson said: “We welcome the committee’s report that makes clear that allegations about interference in this case were baseless and untrue.
“The decision to drop the case was taken independently by the Crown Prosecution Service. We remain disappointed that this case did not reach trial.
“Protecting national security is our first duty and we will never waver from our efforts to keep the British people safe.”
The committee’s findings come as the Planning Inspectorate revealed that a decision on whether to allow a new Chinese “super-embassy” to be built in London, which had been due by December 10, had been pushed back until January 20.
MPs from across the political spectrum have urged the Government to reject China’s application for a new embassy on the site of the former Royal Mint, amid security concerns, including its close proximity to communications cables buried near the site which are vital to the City of London, and about the possibility the embassy could be used to imprison political dissidents.
