Sir Keir Starmer’s former top civil servant has questioned the prime minister’s explanation of how the case against two alleged Chinese spies collapsed.
Simon Case, who served as cabinet secretary between July 2020 and December 2024, challenged Sir Keir’s assertion that the government’s hands were tied by the previous Conservative government’s stance on whether China was officially a threat.
The director of public prosecutions, Stephen Parkinson, said this week that a trial involving two men – a parliamentary researcher and an academic – accused of spying on behalf of China collapsed after the government refused to brand Beijing a threat to national security.
Mr Parkinson said the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had tried “over many months” to get the evidence it needed to carry out the prosecution, but this had not been forthcoming from the Labour government.
Sir Keir has sought to blame the previous Tory administration for the collapse of the trial. “We were disappointed that the trial didn’t proceed, but the position is very clear that the trial would have had to take place on the basis of the situation as it was at the time, under the previous Tory government,” he said.
But, in a rare intervention, Lord Case told The Telegraph: “Going back over years, we have had heads of our intelligence agencies describing in public the threat that China poses to our national and economic security interests.”
The collapse of the case has raised questions about Britain’s willingness to confront China as Sir Keir’s government looks to build closer ties with the country.
Luke de Pulford, the head of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, told The Independent: “It is not credible at any level to try to claim that no evidence was available, so the government’s failure to provide evidence to the CPS in this case must have been motivated by something else, and it looks very much as if it was motivated by a desire not to upset China.”
And former security minister Tom Tugendhat wrote in The Telegraph that the only explanation for the collapse of the case is that someone in the government “made a choice” that relations with China were more important than national security.
Work and pensions secretary Pat McFadden said on Thursday that prosecutions “are a decision for the director of public prosecutions”.
He told Sky News: “As the prime minister made clear in comments he made in his visit to India, these charges were brought at a time under the last government and the evidence has to be provided under the rules at the time.”
The case against Christopher Cash, a former parliamentary researcher, and Christopher Berry was dropped on 15 September, sparking criticism from Downing Street and cross-party MPs.
To prove the case under the Official Secrets Act 1911, prosecutors would have had to show the defendants were acting for an “enemy”.
It comes after Mr Parkinson sent a letter to the chairs of the home affairs and justice committees, explaining why the case had been unable to proceed.
He wrote: “It was considered that further evidence should be obtained.
“Efforts to obtain that evidence were made over many months, but notwithstanding the fact that further witness statements were provided, none of these stated that at the time of the offence China represented a threat to national security, and by late August 2025, it was realised that this evidence would not be forthcoming.
“When this became apparent, the case could not proceed.”
