security consequences of the trial, but also raised the evidence that Collins, the government’s key witness, was due to put forward.
According to Whitehall sources, Powell said that Collins would draw upon National Security Strategy 2025, which was published in June. It refers to China as a “geostrategic challenge” whose actions have “the potential to have a significant effect on the lives of British people”. It does not describe China as an enemy.
Instead, it says the government seeks a “trade and investment relationship” with China, coupled with a “threat-driven” approach to issues such as espionage, interference in democracy and economic security. Robbins was also present and used the meeting to raise concerns about the implications of any conviction.
It is said that Powell left attendees with the understanding that Collins’s witness statement would operate within the language of the report, that is, it would not describe China as an enemy. Civil servants were later told that Collins did not draw upon more detailed, and damning, security assessments about China’s activities made available by the Home Office, which a senior government source said would have made it “very clear that China met the definition of what the legislation [the Official Secrets Act] requires”.
home secretary Shabana Mahmood insisted there was “no ministerial involvement whatsoever” in the CPS decision and that the government was “disappointed to see the case dropped”.
“We already know that the law has changed. So in future, cases would be tried under legislation in which we think this prosecution could have continued. But this was not a decision made by any minister.”
She said she could not comment on the allegation that the decision was taken following an intervention by Powell, but insisted it was a matter for the CPS. “My understanding is that there was no material change in the initial evidence and the evidence that would have gone to trial.”
Alicia Kearns: “The collapse of the trial is inexplicable without ministerial or NSA [national security adviser] involvement.”
“Keir Starmer wants us to believe the government has no hand in this — a preposterous assertion. There are serious questions about constitutional impropriety and he should find some backbone and root out the truth.”
“The state’s silence — and Labour’s unwillingness to be candid with the people of Britain let alone those of us at the heart of this case — at first gave the regrettable impression of ineptitude, now it invites concern of concealment or conspiracy.”
Chris Philp: “The most senior officials at the very top of government appear to have instructed that key evidence about the threat posed by China be ignored — causing a critical prosecution for Chinese espionage to collapse. This would be a shameful failure to protect our national security and democracy, as senior MPs were among those the Chinese were spying on.”
“The government is so eager to appease communist-run China for economic reasons that it is willing to sacrifice our national security. This is a catastrophic mistake that leaves us exposed to hostile Chinese activity. Now we need to know if the prime minister authorised his senior officials to withhold the critical evidence which caused the prosecution to collapse. It seems unlikely they would have acted without his authority. The prime minister must come clean about whether he is personally responsible for undermining our national security in this way.”
2/n
home secretary Shabana Mahmood insisted there was “no ministerial involvement whatsoever” in the CPS decision and that the government was “disappointed to see the case dropped”.
“We already know that the law has changed. So in future, cases would be tried under legislation in which we think this prosecution could have continued. But this was not a decision made by any minister.”
She said she could not comment on the allegation that the decision was taken following an intervention by Powell, but insisted it was a matter for the CPS. “My understanding is that there was no material change in the initial evidence and the evidence that would have gone to trial.”
Alicia Kearns: “The collapse of the trial is inexplicable without ministerial or NSA [national security adviser] involvement.”
“Keir Starmer wants us to believe the government has no hand in this — a preposterous assertion. There are serious questions about constitutional impropriety and he should find some backbone and root out the truth.”
“The state’s silence — and Labour’s unwillingness to be candid with the people of Britain let alone those of us at the heart of this case — at first gave the regrettable impression of ineptitude, now it invites concern of concealment or conspiracy.”
Chris Philp: “The most senior officials at the very top of government appear to have instructed that key evidence about the threat posed by China be ignored — causing a critical prosecution for Chinese espionage to collapse. This would be a shameful failure to protect our national security and democracy, as senior MPs were among those the Chinese were spying on.”
“The government is so eager to appease communist-run China for economic reasons that it is willing to sacrifice our national security. This is a catastrophic mistake that leaves us exposed to hostile Chinese activity. Now we need to know if the prime minister authorised his senior officials to withhold the critical evidence which caused the prosecution to collapse. It seems unlikely they would have acted without his authority. The prime minister must come clean about whether he is personally responsible for undermining our national security in this way.”
2/n