Keir Starmer’s defence for the collapse of the Chinese espionage case rests on two arguments, both patently false.
First, the previous Government did not describe China as a threat and therefore the case can’t be brought now. Second, the case against the Bulgarian nationals spying for Russia raised the evidential threshold to demonstrate a state could be defined as an enemy. I will address both below.
The Conservative Government’s Integrated Review Refresh (2023), published the very day the two men were arrested, stated:
“We will increase our national security protections in those areas where Chinese Communist Party actions pose a *threat* to our people, prosperity and security.”
“The epoch-defining and systemic challenge posed by China under the Chinese Communist Party across almost every aspect of national life and government policy. This included a new focus on tackling *state threats* to the UK’s democracy, economy and society…”
In 2024, Security Minister Tom Tugendhat told Parliament China’s “hostile activity” was posing “a *serious threat* to the security and well-being of the British people.”
The Judge’s remarks in the case of the Bulgarians spying for Russia were clear.
“It seems to me that any state which presently poses an active threat to the UKs national security can properly be described as ‘an enemy’ in ordinary language.”
“It will be for the jury to determine whether the test is met on such evidence as it is called.”
There are abundant references to the threat from China from Conservative Government Ministers, official documents and statements by the Intelligence Services from the time of the arrests. Keir Starmer’s claims otherwise are an attempt to gaslight the public and distract from Labour’s decision to collapse the case by withholding evidence from the CPS.
As I said in the Chamber, a jury should have been given the decision on whether China was or could become an enemy, as the judge in the Bulgaria case spelt out was their duty to determine.
Labour should have provided the CPS with the evidence it needed to go to trial. Its refusal to do so and increasingly desperate excuses are scandalous.