During this period, it is understood that Shabana Mahmood, the newly appointed home secretary, had heard that the case might collapse and had made representations to ensure the evidence put forward was as “strong as possible”.
Other ministers were also told in advance of the risk to the case, including Lord Hermer, the attorney-general, although sources close to him dispute the claim. “It’s fair to say that when Hermer was told the charges were being dropped he didn’t violently object to it,” said one source. “Hermer is a bit of a wet, squishy Londoner who hasn’t left the capital for some time. He thinks a lot of this stuff about China being an enemy is a bit of a confected nonsense by the Tories.”
It was not until Sep 12 that ministers, including Starmer, were officially told the case would not proceed. No efforts to save the case were made during the three days between the notification of the charges being dropped and the announcement.
Many in Whitehall are pointing the finger at the Foreign Office. A senior Whitehall source said: “There was engagement with Foreign Office officials in a lot of meetings that showed how concerned they were when they realised that OSA 1911 would mean we would be defining China as the enemy. The meetings happened in late August [or] early September, when the DPP was pushing and pushing for some kind of wording.”
“In the discussions with the Foreign Office officials, it was clear they didn’t want to piss off China, given all the discussions around trade and Jetco [Joint Economic and Trade Committee], and if they did piss off China, it was Cai Qi they were worried about upsetting.”
“The story that has not yet been written is how the independence of our judiciary has been undermined by a group of senior civil servants.”
However, questions remain about how senior Whitehall mandarins could supposedly act in isolation from any political oversight: ministers are accountable for all decisions taken by civil servants. One Whitehall source said: “If I am jumping up and down like Ollie Robbins was, it is normally because the secretary of state is on my case.”
Many opposition MPs who have worked in government do not believe the government’s position. Tugendhat, the former security minister, told the Commons last week: “Given that the government’s position is that the bureaucrats run the government and are in charge of everything, may we dissolve this House and save the taxpayer the money, because clearly this is not a democracy any more?”
Collins’s refusal to label China an “ongoing” threat in his evidence was thrown into sharp contrast last week by the MI5 boss. Asked specifically about whether he thought China did pose the threat level required by the prosecution, McCallum said: “Do Chinese state actors present a UK national security threat? And the answer is, of course, yes, they do every day.”
Starmer claimed that responsibility for the case’s failure rested with the Conservatives, who were in power at the time of the alleged offences between 2021 and 2023, and they had stopped short of designating China a threat.
Stephen Parkinson, the director of public prosecutions, is facing questions over his decision to halt the prosecution. Last week, he told select committee chairs at a private meeting the evidence was only “5 per cent off” what was required.
Many in Whitehall believe his days could be numbered. One MP who attended the meeting with him said he looked like a “broken man”. It is understood that Parkinson had been told by the prosecuting barrister Tom Little that the evidence provided in Collins’ third statement in August was not strong enough and feared the case would not make it before a jury.
=====
On Oct 17, the row appeared to have further repercussions when Robbins visited Beijing on “long-planned government business”. At the top of his list of aims was an attempt to persuade the Chinese authorities to allow the UK to build a new embassy in Beijing.
3/n