The castle of lies is collapsing

A dynamite letter from the CPS blows up the Government's handling of the China spy case

A second extraordinary letter from the CPS has demolished the government’s arguments about its handling of the China spy case and made it clear that the PM has and other ministers have misled Parliament.

The government have been briefing against the CPS, saying that they could have gone ahead with the prosecution. But the CPS letter makes it clear that was impossible.

We already knew that the government decided not to give the CPS what it needed.

Today we learned they told CPS were instead going to agree with the defendants, destroying any hopes of a successful prosecution. The CPS say:

On 14 August 2025 a meeting took place between our counsel team, a CPS lawyer and the DNSA. In that conference, the DNSA told counsel that he would not state in evidence, if asked, that China posed a risk to our national security at the material time, either in open Court or in a private session. He would also not accept that China was opposed or hostile to the interests of the United Kingdom at the material time. He would accept, if asked, that China was not an enemy in the ordinary meaning of the word, and would not answer the question, if asked, whether China is an enemy within the meaning of the OSA. He would say that is a matter for the jury.

Wow.

The whole castle of lies the government has built is coming crashing down.

Lie 1

Starmer has repeatedly told the Commons that Matt Collins, the Deputy National Security Adviser, declined to describe China as an enemy because it was not the “policy position” of the last government

On 7 October the PM told journalists on his India trip:

“what matters is what the designation was in 2023, because that’s when the offence was committed… As a prosecutor, I know that if you’re going to prosecute a case like this, it is what was the situation at the time that matters. You can’t prosecute someone two years later in relation to a designation that wasn’t in place at the time…

But the DPP says today that is categorically not the case, and now how the law works here:

The requests made by counsel asked about the actual threat posed by China during the relevant period. The test was therefore positively not what the then Government was prepared to, or did, say in public about China (whether framed as its policy or otherwise, and whether as a matter of fact true or not), but rather whether China was - as a matter of fact - an active threat to national security.

Lie 2

The Prime Minister said “yes” when asked if only the DNSA had anything to do with this, and said he hadn’t discussed his evidence with anyone. But the CPS make it clear there were multiple discussions about what the DNSA would say:

Lie 3

The Prime Minister said: “There was no further submission of evidence, one way or the other, after any discussion in September” (he was referring to the meeting on 1st September)

But the CPS met say they met the Deputy NSA on 9 September to request more from him - and he said no.

Lie 4

After the original Sunday Times report, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood originally denied the 1st September meeting had taken place.

She said: “I don’t recognise that reporting about a meeting, I’m not aware of any such meeting taking place.” (Telegraph, 5 October)

The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) also told journalists this meeting had not happened. The PMOS “denied that there was a meeting in which National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell said China would not be classed as an enemy in submitted evidence”. (Guido Fawkes, 6 October)

It was not until Thursday 23 October that the Solicitor General admitted this meeting took place:

“There was a meeting on 1 September in relation to this matter”

Lie 5

The Attorney General implies in his letter tot he joint committee that the CPS asked him on 3 September not to share the news that the prosecution was to collapse “any further” or with ministerial colleagues.

The DNSA and NSA say in their letter they were not allowed to tell ministers:

But the CPS say they expressly allowed him to inform Ministers:

“at the point a decision to offer no evidence was made, the Attorney General was informed, together with the reasons for it. This took place on 3 September 2025. Later that day, I met with the Cabinet Secretary and likewise informed him of the decision and the reasons for it. It was agreed that he might inform a limited group, including some ministers. An outcome of that meeting was that I decided that a further meeting between the DNSA and counsel should take place, to make absolutely certain that the DNSA had been given a full opportunity to state his position. That further meeting took place on 9 September (as noted above) following which the prosecution position was confirmed.”

Lie 6

Right from the off the government has tried to pretend it didn’t know why the trial collapsed, and had nothing to do with it.

On 15 September Security Minister Dan Jarvis said it was an “entirely independent” decision by the CPS to drop the prosecution. He said he was “unable to talk” about the reasons for the decision or “speculate on the reasons”.

“…he is asking me about decisions made by the CPS that are entirely independent of Government. This was an independent decision made by the CPS, and it is not for any Government Minister to speculate on the reasons behind it.”

“Government Ministers should not speculate on the reasons provided for a particular decision by the Crown Prosecution Service, which is independent of Government.”

“I am not able to talk about why the CPS has decided to make this decision.”

“The decision was communicated this morning. This was an independent decision, but I give him and others an assurance that we will, of course, look incredibly closely at it.”

But we now know there was no surprise at all. The CPS letter lays out months of warnings that the government’s position was undermining the prosecution. CPS say:

• On 26 February 2025, following receipt of the DNSA’s second statement dated 21 February 2025, which fell short of answering the question whether at the relevant period China was an active threat to national security, investigators were asked to establish whether the DNSA would discuss risks beyond economic risks. The same day, the answer came back that the DNSA did not feel that he could elaborate any further in this format, but if asked about it in evidence he would be “prepared for it”.

• In May 2025, the Cabinet Office was approached by investigators on the CPS’s behalf to ask whether the DNSA would be willing to put into a “closed” statement (that is, a statement with a security classification which would not be given in open court) matters that he considered to be too sensitive for inclusion in his open statements.

• On 3 July 2025, a meeting took place between our specialist CPS prosecution team and a civil servant from the Cabinet Office. The question posed by counsel: “comment on whether China is a State which, during the period 31 December 2021 to 3 February 2023, posed an active threat to the UK’s national security” was repeated. A discussion took place as to what the DNSA would and would not be able to say.

• On 10 July 2025, in a follow up to that meeting and following a conversation with counsel, the Cabinet Office were told by email that: “After reflecting on the suggested wording “active espionage threat”, we do not consider that this alone goes far enough for the purposes of s.1. OSA 1911. To prove the offence the jury would need to be satisfied so that they were sure that, at the material time, China was an enemy. That China was an active espionage threat would not be sufficient without examples which adequately demonstrate the nature and extent of the threat, such as to ground a finding that China was an enemy.” A further witness statement was provided by the DNSA on 4 August 2025.

• On 14 August 2025 a meeting took place between our counsel team, a CPS lawyer and the DNSA. In that conference, the DNSA told counsel that he would not state in evidence, if asked, that China posed a risk to our national security at the material time, either in open Court or in a private session. He would also not accept that China was opposed or hostile to the interests of the United Kingdom at the material time. He would accept, if asked, that China was not an enemy in the ordinary meaning of the word, and would not answer the question, if asked, whether China is an enemy within the meaning of the OSA. He would say that is a matter for the jury.

• On 9 September 2025, a second conference took place with counsel and the CPS. In the conference, the DNSA confirmed to counsel that, in relation to the 2021 -2023 situation, he would not say that China was an active threat. Successive governments had declined to categorise it as such. He would be unable to say it was an explicit threat, but it would not be a ‘no’. If counsel were to ask anything outside the four corners of the statements, the DNSA would not go there.

Conclusion

As someone who is sanctioned by China I feel betrayed.

The British government not only wouldn’t help prosecute these men but sabotaged the prosecution by telling the CPS they would agree with the defendants.

Ever since they have spun and lied and misdirected and gaslighted in the most shameful way.

But now the castle of lies is collapsing. There is more to come.

Soon the only question will be: who is resigning for this?