Yvette Cooper says she wanted alleged Chinese spies prosecuted during her time as home secretary but was constrained by legal and intelligence limits.
Last month, the case against former parliamentary researcher Christopher Cash, 30, and teacher Christopher Berry, 33, fell apart because the government failed to produce proof that Beijing posed a national security threat.
However, a dispute has erupted after Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, asserted that Sir Keir Starmer's team had "multiple" papers demonstrating China's national security threat prior to the spying trial's failure.
The shadow home secretary accused ministers of "destroying the prosecution" of two men who were suspected of spying for Beijing, claiming that the government "chose not to" turn over these documents to prosecutors.
Ms. Cooper, who is currently foreign secretary but was in chief of MI5 at the time, stated on BBC Radio 4's Today Programme that she was "deeply frustrated" when the case fell apart and that she wanted it prosecuted.
However, she clarified that as this was a criminal prosecution, ministers were "not involved in any of the evidence that was put to the Crown Prosecution Service."
"We don't have national security, we have something much more dangerous, the illusion of national security,"
a senior Whitehall insider said.
The "UK is at war, but neither this government nor Rishi Sunak's were prepared to go on a war footing," the source asserted.
They asserted that the espionage story was only a minor aspect of an axis of Russia, China, and Iran that is attacking the United Kingdom and its allies in the West.
Additionally, accusations that Jonathan Powell "sold out the country for a trade deal" have cast doubt on his status as national security adviser.
Sir Keir has insisted that his government was unable to produce the proof that China posed a threat to national security, which Stephen Parkinson, the director of public prosecutions (DPP), claimed was necessary to meet the requirements for prosecution, because the previous Conservative administration had not declared China to be such.
However, as Sir Keir's administration seeks to forge deeper connections with China, the case's demise has sparked doubts about Britain's readiness to take on the nation.
Mr Parkinson had blamed ministers for failing to provide the crucial evidence needed to proceed, saying the CPS had tried “over many months” to gather material.
Writing in The Times, Mr Philp said:
“The DPP is calling out the government. Keir Starmer’s excuse is that the previous government did not publicly categorise China as a threat to national security.
There is no delicate way to say this: what the prime minister said is totally untrue – and anyway it is not the legal test.”
Mr Philp, who was a Home Office minister between October 2022 and July 2024, added:
“The government has multiple internal documents and reports on the threat China posed to national security in the 2021-23 period.
Starmer’s government could have disclosed these documents to the CPS, in private if needed. It chose not to.
It instead destroyed the prosecution by refusing to disclose the evidence the CPS needed – evidence the government has in its possession – and instead provided unhelpful witness statements.”
Meanwhile, crossbench peer Lord Sedwill, who served as national security adviser from 2017 to 2020, during which time he was also Britain’s most senior civil servant, said he was “genuinely puzzled” about the collapse of the trial.
“The truth is that, of course, China is a national security threat to the UK directly, through cyber, through spying and so on, and indirectly because of some of their aggressive behaviour in the South China Sea and elsewhere,”
the former Cabinet Secretary added, speaking on The
Crisis Room podcast.
Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has said he is “investigating” the episode.
“I know quite a lot about it now and I don’t think that the public explanation that’s been given so far is at all adequate,”
he told LBC.
But speaking at a press conference in India on Thursday, Sir Keir said he “can be absolutely clear, no ministers were involved in any of the decisions since this government’s been in, in relation to the evidence that’s put before the court on this issue”.
He said:
“It’s not a party political point. It’s a matter of law. You can only try someone on the basis of the situation as it was at the time of the alleged offence.
You can’t try them on the basis of the situation as it might evolve, weeks, months, years down the line. That’s a fundamental and that’s at the centre of this particular issue.”
Meanwhile, Ms Cooper told the Today programme: “As the prime minister has set out, this was also about not just the law that was in place at the time of the offences, but also the government stance that was in place at the time of the offences, and it was not for us to say in retrospect what that should have been.”
The foreign secretary added:
“Let’s be really clear, the activity that was alleged in this case absolutely should be illegal and should face prosecution, and that's why we supported changing the law since then, which makes it easier to prosecute cases like this.”
Simon Case, who was cabinet secretary from July 2020 to December 2024, however, made a rare appearance on Thursday and disputed Sir Keir's claim that the government was powerless because of the previous Conservative government's position on whether China posed an official threat.
“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,”
he said.
What legal threshold is required to prosecute espionage under the Official Secrets Act?
Under the Official Secrets Act of the UK, specifically the 1911 Act, the legal standard for prosecution for an espionage offense requires prosecutors to show that the accused acted in a "prejudicial" manner, relating to the safety or interests of the state, and had released information that could be "directly or indirectly useful" to an enemy.
A specific act can be proven prejudicial to the safety of the state, but convictions have also occurred in less serious situations, based on indirect evidence such as "the circumstances," "the conduct of the accused," or the character "involved" in the conduct indicating that the accused's purpose was inimical to the interests of state.
An "enemy" legally includes any state engaging in
conduct against the UK or the interests of national security and, therefore, as
it relates to the legality of a legal espionage offence.