WIREDGOV

Report: Espionage cases and the Official Secrets Acts­

• Read the report [HTML]
• Read the report [PDF]

The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy has published its report on the circumstances surrounding the collapsed prosecution of two individuals accused of spying on Members of Parliament for China.

The decision to drop the case shortly before trial sparked widespread public concern. Key questions included whether there was improper influence at the highest levels of government (or efforts to allow the case to fail) alongside suggestions of questionable decision-making, failures of process and errors of judgement.

The report examines the timeline, actions and decisions from the Government and the Crown Prosecution Service. The Committee notes that the sequence of some events has raised eyebrows – in particular the number of times the Crown Prosecution Service engaged with the Government to obtain the evidence it required (ultimately unsuccessfully), and fact that the prosecution was dropped two days after a group of senior officials met to discuss the case. The process for obtaining the second witness statement took eight months, for reasons which remain obscure to the Committee.

The Committee did not find evidence of a co-ordinated high-level effort to collapse the prosecution, nor of deliberate efforts to obstruct it, circumvent constitutional safeguards, or frustrate the Committee’s inquiry.

However, the Committee did find evidence of a process “beset by confusion and misaligned expectations” that was at times “shambolic”. The report criticises “systemic failures”: communications were inadequate, while constitutional safeguards designed to protect the independence of criminal proceedings instead catalysed a crisis of public confidence and fuelled allegations of conspiracy at the highest levels of government.

The report concludes that some decisions were questionable, opportunities to correct course were missed, and that the episode reflects poorly on the otherwise commendable efforts across public servants to keep the UK safe.

The Committee warns against characterising this as a one-off peculiarity caused by outdated legislation. Similar issues could arise in future, particularly as the number of national security prosecution cases is expected to rise in a worsening security environment.

It recommends the Government work with legal partners to establish principles and communications protocols for handling sensitive cases to mitigate the risk of misaligned expectations in future.

To ensure that the Deputy National Security Advisers (DNSAs) are not left unduly exposed in future, the report calls on Government to review responsibilities, line management and support structures for the DNSAs, and explore what top-level support or advice can be made available to bound witnesses in sensitive national security cases.

Chair comment

Chair of the Joint Committee, Matt Western MP, said:

“Like many others, I was deeply concerned when this case collapsed. The Committee has undertaken a detailed investigation into what happened, and where lessons can be learned.

We examined the facts and witness testimony in some detail. We found no evidence of a co-ordinated effort to collapse or obstruct the prosecution. However, we did find some decisions questionable, and some of the processes looked shambolic. It is regrettable that safeguards designed to protect the independence of our legal system – particularly around the role of the Attorney General – instead undermined public confidence.

As the global security environment worsens, sensitive national security cases will arise more frequently. The Government must show the public that it is confident in standing up to adversaries when required: failing to do so will corrode public trust in our institutions.

The Government must work with legal partners to think through what happens when such cases arrive. How will they be prosecuted and handled in a way that mitigates the risk of misunderstandings?

The Government should also consider whether more support can be offered to senior public officials, such as the DNSAs, who may be simultaneously exposed and isolated, due to the limits on what they can discuss during a case.

I hope our report helps to draw a line under this episode and ensures all parties can learn lessons for the future.”