theguardian - 2 days ago

Former attorney general Dominic Grieve, having read the witness statements, said he was ‘mystified’ why the prosecution did not go aheadGood morning. Late last night No 10 finally released the three witness statements written by Matthew Collins, the deputy national security adviser, for the Crown Prosecution Service to assist its prosection of the two men alleged to have been spying on behalf of China.The first document is here. At 12 pages, it is the longest, it was written in December 2023, and it sets out in detail the case against the two accused. Collins admits that none of the material passed on was “protectively marked” (ie, officially classified as secret), and the document makes it clear that the spying allegations (that the two accused have always denied) are not remotely in the Philby, Burgess and Maclean category. But Collins says their alleged activities were “prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK”.Yesterday the prime minister insisted that the deputy national security adviser’s witness statements reflected the last Conservative government’s policy towards China.Now we discover that a witness statement sent under this Labour government included language describing the current government’s policy towards China, which was directly lifted from the Labour party manifesto. Did an official, adviser or minister suggest that this should be included?I am told that the director of public prosecutions Stephen Parkinson has just told some of parliament’s most senior MPs - chairs of home, justice, foreign and security committees - that the evidence provided by the government’s witness in the China spy case, the deputy national security adviser, was “5% less than the evidence threshold that was needed.”Parkinson told the MPs that the deputy national security adviser, Matthew Collins, had made it clear to the Crown Prosecution Service he was not going to provide the additional 5%. Which is why Parkinson canned the case. And as I said earlier, he informed the Attorney General Hermer of his decision to kibosh the prosecution.I am a bit mystified, having read the statements, as to what the issue [that blocked the prosecution] actually is.Although the first statement dwelt particularly on what it was alleged the two individuals had done, the later ones did set out pretty fully what I recollect was the then government’s position on China – ‘epoch-defining and systemic challenge, with implications for almost every area of government policy and the lives of the British people’. Continue reading...

Latest News

Hashtags:   

Starmer

 | 

further

 | 

questions

 | 

after

 | 

China

 | 

documents

 | 

quell

 | 

controversy

 | 

politics

 | 

Sources