Powell’s Exclusion from Case Details Confirmed by Ministers
In a developing political row over national security, a senior cabinet minister stated that Jonathan Powell, the government’s national security adviser, did not participate in discussions about the substance or the evidence in the dropped China spy case. Bridget Phillipson, a prominent cabinet minister, insisted on Sunday that Powell had no involvement in the prosecution’s abandonment and that Prime Minister Keir Starmer maintained full confidence in him.
The controversy centers on the abrupt withdrawal of charges against two British men accused of spying for China. Reports suggest Powell’s influence may have shaped the government’s stance on how China should be described in court, with implications for the viability of prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act. Critics argue that the government’s position on whether Beijing posed a national security threat affected the case’s progression.
What’s at Stake: The Official Secrets Act and National Security Language
Under the updated national security strategy released in June, China was categorized as a “geostrategic challenge” rather than an outright enemy. This phrasing has legal and evidentiary significance in how cases under the Official Secrets Act are prosecuted. If a government characterizes a nation as a direct threat, prosecutors may have greater latitude to argue that actions by individuals betraying national interests amount to offences. The lapse in the Cash and Berry case has intensified scrutiny over whether political considerations were allowed to influence legal processes.
Responses from Central Figures
Phillipson appeared on BBC’s Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg to address concerns about Powell’s involvement. She stated that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is best placed to explain the decision to drop charges, but underscored that ministers, including the national security adviser, had no role in the “substance of the case or the evidence in question.”
On Sky News, Education Secretary Keir Starmer and leadership allies faced questions about Powell’s role. Phillipson affirmed that Starmer still had full confidence in Powell, noting the government’s disappointment that the CPS could not proceed with the prosecution. The remarks come amid ongoing debates about ministerial accountability and the independence of prosecutorial decisions.
Legal Echoes: Case Law and the Timeframe of Threat Assessments
The director of public prosecutions, Stephen Parkinson, highlighted that the case was dropped after ministers and officials declined to declare Beijing a threat to UK national security during the offence period. This aligns with case law evolving after charges were brought against two researchers, one of whom was based in China, and a separate espionage trial involving Bulgarian nationals accused of spying for Russia.
Phillipson pointed to the fact that some statutory changes date back to the prior Conservative government, indicating a long-standing legal framework that current ministers must navigate. The issue is not merely about one case but about how language and threat assessments influence the admissibility of evidence and the viability of prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act.
Opposition and Context
Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, rejected the minister’s assurances, arguing that China has long been treated as a threat. The exchange underscores broader partisan debates about how the government defines security threats and how those definitions affect prosecutions and national policy.
As the government seeks to clarify Powell’s role, the episode continues to fuel scrutiny over the balance between national security language and the independence of investigative and prosecutorial processes.
