Minister says adviser had no role in evidence for China spy case | UK News

A key security adviser had no role in the “substance or the evidence” of the collapsed case against two men accused of spying for China, the education secretary has said.

The Conservatives have suggested Jonathan Powell, the prime minister’s national security adviser, had a role in not giving prosecutors evidence they said they needed to secure convictions.

Charges against Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry – who both deny the allegations – were dropped last month, prompting criticism from ministers and MPs.

Asked about Mr Powell’s involvement, Bridget Phillipson told the : “I can give you that reassurance, he did not have those conversations around the substance or the evidence of the case.”

Phillipson said ministers were “deeply disappointed that the case hasn’t proceeded” and insisted the Crown Prosecution Service was “best placed to explain why it was not able to bring forward a prosecution”.

Downing Street had previously denied that ministers were involved in the collapse of the case.

But in a rare intervention this week, the director of public prosecutions Stephen Parkinson, the head of the CPS, said the trial collapsed because the government did not provide evidence referring to China as a national security threat.

The Conservatives have submitted an urgent question in Parliament, asking ministers to address MPs on Monday to explain why the trial collapsed.

They have suggested Mr Powell, who has sought closer relations with Beijing, failed to give the CPS the evidence required.

Shadow home secretary Chris Philp told the ministers “must urgently explain why it chose not to disclose the reams of information it has demonstrating China was a threat to national security in the 2021-2023 period”.

He said: “It looks as if Jonathan Powell was behind this decision – and he should resign if he is.”

The prime minister has said the government could only draw on the previous Conservative’s position, which designated China an “epoch-defining challenge”.

“You have to prosecute people on the basis of the circumstances at the time of the alleged offence,” the prime minister told reporters in India this week.

“So all the focus needs to be on the policy of the Tory government in place then.”

Several former Conservative ministers and advisers have told the there was no official designation of whether a country amounts to a threat.

They claim there is a document with “hundreds” of examples of Chinese activity posing a threat to the UK at the time of the alleged offences, which could have been given as evidence.

Sources cited the hack on the Ministry of Defence, which ministers suspected China was behind, as one of many incidents.

“I don’t think there is a sane jury in the world that would look at that evidence and conclude China was not a threat,” a source in the last government said.

Former Conservative ministers also point to public statements, including from the former head of MI5 Ken McCallum, who in 2023 said there had been a “sustained campaign” of Chinese espionage on a “pretty epic scale”.

The Liberal Democrats said the government’s approach to China was “putting our national security at risk”.

The party urged the government to block the planning application for a new Chinese embassy in London.

“Giving the green light to the super embassy being built in the heart of the City of London and above critical data connections would enable Chinese espionage on an industrial scale,” Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Calum Miller said.

Mr Cash, a former parliamentary researcher, and Mr Berry, were charged under the Official Secrets Act in April 2024, when the Conservatives were in power.

They were accused of gathering and providing information prejudicial to the safety and interests of the state between December 2021 and February 2023.

Under the Official Secrets Act, anyone accused of spying can only be prosecuted if the information they passed on was useful to an enemy.

However, last month the director of public prosecutions said “the case could no longer proceed to trial since the evidence no longer met the evidential test”.