I am puzzled by the apparent position of the PM on the dropping of the prosecutions in the alleged China spying cases. I am not an expert in this area so am happy to be corrected. But it seems to me that two things are being conflated. /1
This does not address the fact the Crown Prosecution Service says it spent months seeking further evidence from government about the threat posed by China — but got nothing.
Also, the PM claims his hands were tied by the Conservative govt’s classification of China.
Is that true? Does the Official Secrets Act (and the 2024 case law) not simply require prosecutors to demonstrate that a state constituted an enemy (or threat to national security) at the time of the offence? Genuine Q: Is there any basis in legislation or precedent for the idea a govt has to defer to a previous administration’s analysis of the facts?
If so — why would the CPS have spent so much time seeking further evidence from the government? That would seem an extraordinary misreading of the law and waste of time and resource by prosecutors.
Oct 8, 2025 · 8:30 AM UTC
16
109
236
91,564
Under the (now repealed) Official Secrets Act 1911, as interpreted by the courts (including by the Court of Appeal in Ivanova[2024] EWCA Crim 808, the 'enemy' in question must have been an 'enemy' at the time the offence was committed. That much is uncontroversial. /2
2
12
49
4,336
The meaning of 'enemy', according to the Court of Appeal, includes 'a country which represents a current threat to the national security of the UK' and involves questions of 'fact and degree' that are ultimately for the jury. /3
1
13
49
11,483
A separate question concerns evidence that might enable a jury to conclude that a given country, eg China, was an enemy at the relevant time (ie at the time of the commission of the alleged offence). /4
1
12
43
3,751
Unless I am misunderstanding it, the PM's position appears to be that the only view that matters is that of the government *at the time of the commission of the alleged offence* such that the current government cannot form an independent view and submit it as evidence. /5
2
15
55
5,158
But I can see no basis for that view in the Act or in the case law. In particular, I can see no reason why the current govt could not submit evidence to the effect that, in its view, a given country was an enemy when the alleged offence was committed ... /6
2
13
68
5,163
... even thought a different government was in office at that time. It would be for the court to weigh the current government's evidence, but the notion that the current government cannot have a view that can constitute evidence is hard to follow. /7
2
13
50
3,378
Presumably what I have said here aligns with the view of the CPS, otherwise they would not have spent several months (unsuccessfully) seeking evidence from the current government about its view concerning China at the relevant time. /8
1
13
59
8,446
As I say, I am not an expert in this area (so may well be overlooking something important) andI would be interested in the views of those who are. 9/9
2
9
34
3,471
One further thought on this: Here is what the Security Minister (in the previous government) said in 2024: /10
3
23
69
8,727
