The China Spy Scandal

The government deliberately collapsed the trial of two men who spied on MPs for China, then Ministers lied to Parliament about it.

Updated at 12:00 on 12 October with additional material.

The key points

• Here is an extract from a briefing provided to the press by the Crown Prosecution Service, dated 26 April 2024, when charges were first laid against two men accused of spying on MPs for China:

• When their prosecution was dropped on 15 September, Ministers said they were surprised, and said they had only become aware of this decision that day.

• Minister Dan Jarvis told the Commons and that this decision had been an “entirely independent” one.

• But we now know neither of these claims were true. Stephen Parkinson, the Director of Public prosecutions (DPP), has now said he spent months in discussion with the government, trying to get them to release evidence.

• At least until recently Prime Minister Keir Starmer has been claiming that the CPS were unable to prosecute because of the failure of the last Conservative government to ‘designate’ China as an enemy in some sense.

• But this idea of “designation” is a complete red herring. As various leading lawyers have pointed out, this is not how the law works. We don’t “designate” countries as enemies. In fact the only test in the official secrets act is your ability to convince a jury that the country in question was “an ongoing security threat”.

• The last government said repeatedly, in terms, that it regarded China as a “threat”. But even if it had not done so - which it did - the government could have presented evidence that China was a threat.

• The Prime Minister’s argument has been refuted by: the former Head of Public Prosecutions Lord MacDonald; the former Head of the Civil Service Simon Case; former head of MI6 Sir Richard Dearlove, former National Security Adviser Lord Sedwill, and Professor Mark Elliott, Professor of Public Law at the University of Cambridge. Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism and state threat legislation, has also cast doubt on the official explanation and said he is investigating. Yet Ministers including the Education secretary are continuing to lean on this line.

• Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood and the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman both said that a crucial meeting in early September did not in fact take place.

• But this line now appears to be crumbling with Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson instead arguing that Powell was not involved in the “substance” of the case - whatever that means.

• Starmer and Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper are now emphasising that “ministers” were not involved in these decisions, but swerving questions about whether his the PM’s political appointee, Jonathan Powell, was involved. At least one minister has said it was “nothing to do with him” [Powell].

• Rather than being surprised bystanders, as Ministers initially implied, we also know from reports in the Sunday Times that Foreign Office officials approached the Lords Speaker proposing a “deal” in which China would drop sanctions on Parliamentarians in return for the Chinese ambassador being allowed back into Parliament. The Sunday Times has also reported that “Jingye, the Chinese owners of British Steel, offered to waive the £1 billion compensation that they claim to be owed by the British government for the steelworks in Scunthorpe”

• The wider China strategy of the current government in turn raises wider questions – we now know about the extensive China connections of Jonathan Powell. But there are also wider questions about the involvement of Treasury and Foreign Office ministers. It has been reported that the Treasury played a critical role in preventing the publication of the government’s China Audit. Despite all this, ministers are claiming they knew nothing of any of the government’s interactions with the CPS over months. This is implausible. In particular, there remain big unanswered questions about what the PM knew of this and when.

Some key questions

• Is it plausible that the PM and other ministers knew nothing of the government’s interactions with the CPS over the “many months” in which the government refused to give the CPS the material it wanted?

• Did Ministers at HMT, Home Office or the FCDO ever talk to the PM about this? Did Powell really never even mention it to him?

• Is the government still denying that a meeting including Powell and Robbins took place in early September? If not, why did the Home Secretary and PMOS deny this?

• Ministers now say Powell was “not involved in the substance of the case and discussions around that” - what does this mean? If Powell was “not involved” in the decision over months not to give the CPS what they needed, then who was?

• Does the government now accept that what Dan Jarvis told the house of Commons on 15 September - that the government had no warning and wasn’t involved - was misleading?

• Is it still the government’s position to claim that it would have been impossible to argue that China was a threat in court? If so, why does the PM think the former head of Public Prosecutions, former head of the Civil Service, former head of MI6 and former National Security Adviser are all wrong?

Case law

In the case of Ivanova and Roussev in 2024 the Court of appeal explained regarding the Official Secrets Act that:

“There is no reason in our view why the term “an enemy” should not include a country which represents a current threat to the national security of the UK. That formulation may well involve issues of fact and degree which the jury would be well-placed to assess, on evidence.”

Although the government have sought to muddy the water, this ruling last year made the evidential basis for a successful prosecution easier, not harder. It triggered the CPS to speak to the new government, after which it became apparent the new government would not give the CPS the evidence it wanted.

15 September: the government lies to Parliament

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 said again and again that he could not say and did not know why this had happened – but we now know the government knew all about it, and the reasons. Jarvis implied multiple times the government didn’t know the reasons:

“The decision not to proceed with this prosecution is an independent one for the CPS to make in its role as the UK’s independent prosecuting authority.”

“…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.”

Asked why the CPS had dropped the case he encouraged Alicia Kearns herself:

“to seek a meeting with the CPS at the earliest available opportunity to hear and better understand the decision-making process it has been through.”

Jarvis also set out the government’s red herring argument and argued that there were deficiencies with the Official Secrets Act 1911 and the “unhelpful “enemy” language” – he implied that a prosecution would have been possible under the new 2023 legislation, which he said had enjoyed cross party support.

He argued: “The last Government did not describe China as an enemy, and this Government do not think our relationship can be simplified down to a single word.”

He refused to be drawn on whether China was a “threat” saying instead that it was a “sophisticated and persistent challenge”.

The September meeting

On 5 October The Sunday Times reported that a meeting had been held in early September, which included National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell and Olly Robbins, Permanent Under-Secretary to the Foreign Office.

At this meeting Powell explained that instead of being prepared to argue that China was a “threat” as previous government ministers had, the current government would only describe it within the terms of Labour’s recently published official report: “The National Security Strategy 2025”, which stops well short of this and describes China as a “challenge”.

Olly Robbins reportedly used the meeting to raise concerns about the negative diplomatic and economic implications of any conviction.

Yet Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood denied the 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”. He also blamed the previous government:

“Government evidence in relation to this case is based on previous government policy that obviously was relevant at the time that the alleged offences took place between 2021 and 2023 and the previous government position on China is a matter of public record”

(Guido Fawkes, 6 October)

What the CPS say

The government’s line started to crack when on 5 October Stephen Parkinson, the director of public prosecutions (DPP), revealed that for more than a year the Government had failed to provide evidence.

Far from being surprised at the collapse of the case, or it having been “entirely independent”, the CPS revealed the government had refused “over many months” to give it the evidence it wanted, or to say that China was a “threat”. Parkinson - very unusually - wrote to the chairs of the Home Affairs and Justice Committees to say that he was only responding because of government briefings. He wrote:

“I am satisfied that the decision to charge this case in April 2024 was correct. This was on the basis of where the law stood at that time in relation to the requirements of the Official Secrets Act 1911. Some weeks later, a High Court decision (R v Roussev and others 2024) ruled that “enemy” for the purposes of the 1911 Act includes a country which represents at the time of the offence, a threat to the national security of the UK.

In the light of this new judgement, it was considered that further evidence should be obtained. Efforts to obtain that evidence were made over many months, but notwithstanding the fact that further witness statements were provided, none of these stated that at the time of the offence China represented a threat to national security, and by late August 2025 it was realised that this evidence would not be forthcoming. When this became apparent, the case could not proceed.”

This is a direct contradiction of what Dan Jarvis said in the House of Commons on 15 September, when he argued that the decision had been entirely independent and that the government were unable to explain the reasons the case had been pulled. It is possible that Jarvis himself did not know - but the government certainly did. So, by briefing Jarvis to make these untrue claims, the government misled Parliament.

On 10 October the Times reported that a specific MI5 dossier on the threat posed by China was never passed to the CPS. (Times, 10 October)

What lawyers and experts are saying

Lord Macdonald, former Director of Public Prosecutions, says it is “difficult to understand” why the case had been dropped, as it was “self-evident” that China posed a threat. Lord Macdonald said:

“The whole thing is very difficult to understand. It seems self-evident that China poses that threat because it is accused of recruiting two people to spy on the UK, including upon its parliamentarians. That of itself clearly constitutes a threat to national security.”

He said the CPS did not need the Government to provide further evidence of the threat posed by China but he also did not understand why the Government did not provide it, as “the Chinese threat to the UK is so well known and so well documented”. (Telegraph, 8 October)

Lord MacDonald said the bar for prosecution “was set lower” by the Roussev case. He said:

“it seems to me that if a country is prepared, as it was in this Chinese case, to recruit two UK citizens, including a Parliamentary researcher, as spies against our interests a jury could have easily concluded that this fact alone made China quotes ‘a country which represents a threat to the national security of the UK’”

“Everyone is running for cover… but you simply cannot have a serious national security case collapsing without some proper explanation being given to the public and the Attorney General Lord Hermer has to attend Parliament, when Parliament returns from Recess, to explain what has happened here”

(Today, 8:10 AM, 8 October)

The Former Head of the Civil Service Lord Case has said:

“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.”

(Telegraph, 8 October)

Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of MI6 between 1999 and 2004, told Times Radio the collapsed case should “be reopened”.

He said: “It seems to me pretty straightforward. The idea that China is not a threat to national security when it’s acting in this manner is completely absurd. It’s sort of inexplicable.” (Telegraph, 8 October)

Lord Sedwill, National Security Adviser from 2017-2020, said he found the official explanation given for the prosecution being pulled is “very hard to understand”

“I mean, 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, which potentially disrupts trade routes and so on, on which we are dependent. So, of course, those things are true.”

“I’m genuinely puzzled, to put it politely, about the basis on which this trial has fallen apart. We introduced the National Security Act because the Official Secrets Act was not fit for purpose. But the idea that you could leak or sell or betray the secrets of this country to anyone who isn’t described as an enemy, and somehow or other, that means you couldn’t be prosecuted, I certainly didn’t understand that to be the case under the Official Secrets Act. Could you really have taken the whole nuclear deterrent and put it in a newspaper and that wouldn’t be a breach of the Official Secrets Act?”

(Telegraph, 9 September)

Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism and state threat legislation, also said China was a threat and cast doubt on the official explanation.

“Yeah, it is a threat to national security. What’s going on with the prosecution is something that I’m investigating. 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.”

“I personally find it confusing and I do think that when something like this happens, the public and everyone who was looking at this to say, well, how is the UK going to treat this sort of behaviour by China? It deserves a much fuller explanation.”

(LBC, 9 September)

Professor Mark Elliott, Professor of Public Law at the University of Cambridge:

“The reality is that it is open to the government today to say that it considers that China was a threat to national security in 2021–23 and to offer that view as evidence for the purpose of criminal proceedings. Nothing in the OSA itself or in the Court of Appeal’s recent judgement would prevent that. Indeed, if the current government was legally unable to form an independent view and put it in evidence, it is very difficult to understand why the CPS would have spent several months seeking to obtain witness statements from the current government as to its view concerning the national security threat presented by China in 2021–23.”

“It therefore seems to me that the upshot is that the current government’s contention that the previous government did not consider China to be a threat to national security at the relevant time is highly contestable — and that even if that was the view of the previous government, it is not a view that relevantly binds the current government.”

(Public Law for Everyone, 8 October)

The position under the last government

In reality the previous government had described China as a “threat” multiple times.

The Integrated Review Refresh 2023 described China as a threat several times. For examples saying:

“The UK will further strengthen our national security protections in those areas where the actions of the CCP pose a threat to our people, prosperity and security”

In 2024 Minister for Security Tom Tugendhat told the Commons:

“Let me be clear that the hostile activity we have seen from Chinese authorities and state-affiliated groups poses a serious threat to the security and wellbeing of the British people and to our partners and allies across the world.”

(Hansard, 15 April 2024)

In 2021, the government’s Integrated Review of Security and Defence stated that China presented “the biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security”. The same document added that the “distinction between economic and national security is increasingly redundant”.

Also in 2021 Richard Moore, the head of MI6 gave a speech talking about “the ‘big four’ set of threats: China, Russia, Iran and international terrorism”

In 2020 the Government announced that Huawei would be removed from UK 5G networks.

When China passed the Hong Kong national security law in mid-2020, the UK government publicly condemned it as a “clear and serious breach” of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, and the UK offered a route to the UK for holders of British National (Overseas) passports.

On 22 April 2021, the Commons unanimously passed a motion stating that China was committing genocide and crimes against humanity against Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang.

In 2023 the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament China report repeatedly described China as a “threat” throughout hundreds of pages of analysis.

How the government line is shifting

The Prime Minister has attempted to blame the last government and clings to the idea of “designation”.

On 7 October he 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… “you have to prosecute people on the basis of what was the state of affairs at the time of the offence. Nothing changes that fundamental, whoever is in government.”

However, the government line may be shifting as this red-herring argument about “designation” is undermined.

Asked if Ministers or Jonathan Powell were involved in the decision not to provide the CPS with evidence, the PM said “no ministers” were involved in the decisions - and dodged the question on Powell.

“I 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.”

However, Flood minister Emma Hardy was asked whether Powell, who is not a minister, was involved, to which she responded that the decision had “nothing to do with him, nothing to do with ministers whatsoever. That is completely false.” (Guido Fawkes, 9 October).

On 10 October Yvette Cooper said:

“China poses threats to UK national security… “I’m deeply frustrated about this case. But ministers were not involved in any of the evidence that was put to the CPS.”

This formulation:

• a) excludes Powell,

• b) rates questions about what ‘involved’ means - does it really mean completely unaware and

• c) doesn’t say anything about evidence which the government chose not give to the to CPS.

Is it really plausible that ministers were not even informed of the government’s interactions over months with the CPS?

On 12 October the Government’s line shifted again. Bridget Phillipson told Laura Kuenssberg:

“Ministers and others including the National Security Advisor had no role to play in either the substance of the case or the evidence in question, and evidential questions are matters for the Crown prosecution service”

Laura Kuenssberg asked whether Phillipson would say that Powell was not involved in “any discussions about the evidence being presented in this case?” She said:

“he was not involved in the substance of the case and discussions around that, or the evidence connected to the case… I can give you that reassurance, he did not have those conversations around the substance or the evidence of the case.”

This lawyerly formulation obviously raises huge questions. Given the government has further evidence in addition to what is in the public domain to show China is a threat, who took the decision not to release this, if not Powell? Phillipson is not denying a meeting took place, only that it did not “discuss” the “substance” of the case. What does that mean?

On 12 October the Sunday Times reported that:

“One minister vividly recalls the moment they were told the Chinese espionage case was about to collapse. It was during a telephone call from a cabinet minister at 9.30pm about six weeks ago.

The accusation was clear that Jonathan Powell in cahoots with the Treasury had been driving through the decision,” the source said. “The explicit suggestion was that the case had to be dropped to appease China, otherwise there would be no further investment from Beijing.”

This obviously undermines the claim of Dan Jarvis to have only heard about the decision that day

The Sunday Times also reported that:

“Jingye, the Chinese owners of British Steel, offered to waive the £1 billion compensation that they claim to be owed by the British government for the steelworks in Scunthorpe if the embassy is given the go-ahead.”

This sort of thing may go some way towards explaining the Treasury’s seemingly strong involvement in the case.

The Government’s wider stance on China

On 10 March the Times reported that Powell:

“is also extremely close to Lord Mandelson, Britain’s ambassador to the United States. Mandelson recommended Powell, then a senior British diplomat in Washington, to Blair as his chief of staff when he was a British diplomat working in Washington.”

Mandelson himself had worked very closely with China while working as a lobbyist.

On 9 October the Telegraph reported that: “Jonathan Powell suppressed a major Whitehall investigation into Chinese spying after lobbying from the Treasury”

Sources said that Mr Powell, Sir Keir Starmer’s national security adviser, decided in June that the Government would not publish details about espionage from the Foreign Office’s extensive “China Audit”. His decision came after Treasury officials said releasing information from the “comprehensive” analysis of China’s influence in Britain could damage trade and investment links. (Telegraph, 9 October)

At the time the government made a different argument, claiming it could not be released for security reasons. Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee Emily Thornberry said:

We were looking forward to seeing it published and to the Foreign Secretary coming to talk to us—he said that he would—but instead we are looking through a glass darkly, we do not know and we will not be able to see it. We want to be able to do our job properly and scrutinise this important piece of work. May I therefore suggest that the Foreign Secretary makes available a reading room at the FCDO for Foreign Affairs Committee members and staff before his appearance on 8 July so that we can study the audit properly and hold him to account?

But David Lammy rebuffed this, saying: “In completing the audit, it has been important to remain consistent with our Five Eyes partners. She will recognise why much of the audit has led to a high level of classification.” (Hansard, 24 June)

Jonathan Powell is reported to have had extensive contacts with Chinese front organisations and has lectured in Beijing.

On 10 October the Guardian reported that Olly Robbins will visit China next week. This follows meetings Powell had in July. Keir Starmer is expected to visit China early in the new year.

In January it was reported that Emma Reynolds, now Secretary of State for Agriculture, had lobbied for ministers to water down proposed restrictions on Chinese business activity, while working for financial lobby group TheCityUK. (Independent, 15 January).

On 12 October the Telegraph ran a piece on the wider China connections of the key decision makers in government.

The Chinese embassy

There has been extensive discussion about the government waving through China’s new London “Super Embassy”. In 2022, Tower Hamlets voted unanimously to reject plans for a new Chinese embassy. The Chinese government were furious about this and made it clear they would not re-apply unless they had reassurances that it would be approved. The then government said it was unable to give such reassurances - this would be a breach of the law.

In 2023 Patrick Wintour reported in the Guardian that “The UK Foreign Office is aware that if it does not intervene, its already strained relations with Beijing will be damaged further.” And that:

“Chinese officials appear to have decided that rather than appeal through the local Tower Hamlets planning process, where they have relatively little chance of success, they want central government to intervene and give assurances that it will back a resubmitted application.”

The BBC has reported that:

“On 23 August, Sir Keir Starmer phoned Chinese President Xi Jinping for their first talks. Afterwards Sir Keir confirmed that Xi had raised the issue of the embassy.”

The Telegraph has reported that David Lammy personally intervened and wrote to Angela Rayner in September asking her to “call in” the decision in September.

In October 2024, Angela Rayner did indeed ‘call in’ the planning application to allow for ministers to decide whether the plans for the new consulate could go ahead.

In November at the G20 Starmer confirmed this was done at China’s request:

“You raised the Chinese Embassy in London when we spoke in the phone. We have since taken action by calling in that application”

The Financial Times reported that China was refusing to share details of “greyed out” sections of the plans. Representatives for the Chinese government wrote to Rayner arguing the “applicant does not consider that, as a matter of principle, it is necessary or appropriate to provide full internal layout plans… in order to understand what has been permitted (FT, 22 August).

But as a result planning expert Lord Banner KC warned the government approval may be unlawful (Times, 10 September)

Perhaps because of this, the decision deadline was extended to 21 October because of withheld information. (Reuters, 22 August)

CSIS have argued “that the embassy’s position directly atop fiber-optic cables also creates opportunities for fiber-cable tapping” (CSIS, 13 June).

If the government have privately given assurances to China on allowing this planning application, they will have broken the law. Local residents are said to be planning a Judicial Review of any decision to allow it which will bring the question of assurances into the spotlight.

On 12 October the Telegraph reported that “British intelligence agencies were prevented from directly submitting spying concerns about the proposed Chinese super-embassy in London.”

Unanswered questions

On the spy scandal:

• Is it plausible that the PM and other ministers knew nothing of the government’s interactions with the CPS over the “many months” in which the government refused to give the CPS the material it wanted?

• Did ministers at HMT or the FCDO ever talk to the PM about this? Did Powell really never even mention it to him?

• Is the government still denying that a meeting including Powell and Robbins took place in early September?

• Does the government now accept that what Dan Jarvis told the house of Commons on 15 September - that the government had no warning and wasn’t involved - was misleading?

• Is it still the government’s position to claim that it would have been impossible to argue that China was a threat in court? If so, why does the PM think the former head of Public Prosecutions, former head of the Civil Service, former head of MI6 and former National Security Adviser are all wrong?

• Will Lord Hermer make a Statement, as suggested by the former DPP?

• Why is the government refusing to give the CPS the compendium of material from the security services compiled under the last government?

Wider questions on China policy:

• Why is the government refusing to publish the China Audit?

• Were any reassurances given to the Chinese about the planning decision on their embassy?