In a dramatic move that could have far-reaching implications, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has pledged to publish crucial witness evidence from the collapsed China spy case that has stirred controversy across Westminster and raised questions about the UK’s national security stance.
Starmer to Expose Spy Case Secrets
The Prime Minister made the announcement during a tense Prime Minister’s Questions session, stating his intention to release three key witness statements that were previously shared with prosecutors.
This step, he insists, will offer clarity and transparency after the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) dropped espionage charges against two British men accused of spying for China.
“I’m deeply disappointed by the outcome. We wanted to see prosecutions,” said Sir Keir.
What’s This Case About?
- Two men – Christopher Cash, 30, a former parliamentary researcher, and Christopher Berry, 33, a schoolteacher – were accused of passing intelligence to China.
- The charges were dropped last month.
- The CPS stated the case fell apart because the evidence didn’t demonstrate that China was considered a national security threat at the time of the alleged offences.
“Blame Lies With Previous Government”
Starmer made it clear the collapse of the case is rooted in the Conservative government’s own policy stance on China. He pointed directly to the 2021 Integrated Review and its 2023 refresh, which notably did not label China an enemy.
“The deputy national security adviser [DNSA], Matt Collins, set out the then government’s position in a substantive witness statement in 2023, which was subsequently supplemented by two further short statements.
The cabinet secretary assures me that the DNSA faithfully set out the policy of the then Tory government. I know first-hand that the DNSA is a civil servant of the utmost integrity,” Starmer explained.
He was adamant that no current minister or special adviser played any role in preparing or influencing the evidence submitted to the CPS.
National security experts say the public release of such high-level statements is extremely rare and could shed light on internal policy decisions that shaped the UK’s cautious diplomatic posture towards China.
Badenoch Attacks Starmer Fires Back
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch came out swinging, using all six of her PMQs slots to grill the Prime Minister. At one point, she delivered a cutting jibe: “What on earth is the point of us having a lawyer rather than a leader as prime minister if he can’t even get the law right on a matter of national security?”
Starmer didn’t hold back, firing back with: “She’s clearly not a lawyer or a leader.”
Their heated exchange set the tone for what’s likely to become a prolonged political row.
Misquotes and Mistrust: Tories Hit Back
Former Foreign Secretary Sir James Cleverly also weighed in, furiously contesting Starmer’s claim that he had previously downplayed the threat from China.
“I have been misquoted. And the misquote, I think, is significant. It has been said that I… said that describing China was impossible, impractical and, most importantly, unwise,” he said, referencing a Mansion House speech.
He clarified the full quote highlighted the complexities of foreign policy towards Beijing, and that national security remained paramount.
Tory Party Chairman Kevin Hollinrake later added fuel to the fire, accusing the PM of misleading Parliament. “The Prime Minister almost certainly misleading Parliament today.”
Parliamentary Procedure in Question
Perhaps the most serious claim came from Luke de Pulford, executive director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China.
Responding on social media, he raised doubts about Starmer’s assertion that the DNSA did not consult with any top government officials or advisers.
“This is an historic moment. For the Prime Minister’s answer to be correct, normal procedure would have to have been abandoned.”
Starmer stood by his remarks, even as pressure mounted over what some saw as inconsistencies in the official version of events.
Starmer’s promise to publish the three witness statements could open a new chapter in the UK’s handling of espionage threats and foreign policy transparency.
However, this high-stakes decision also risks unearthing more criticism from Tory ranks and reigniting the long-standing debate over how the UK positions itself against global powers like China.
While the statements are expected to undergo a brief security review before release, the Prime Minister confirmed: “Given the information contained, we will conduct a short process. But I want to make clear, I intend to publish the witness statements in full.”
This move, while bold, now places the spotlight back on the former Conservative government’s diplomatic caution and may very well ignite a wider reckoning over how Britain defines national security threats in a rapidly shifting geopolitical landscape.
