Thread by @cazjwheeler

Latest Sunday Times story on collapsed China spy trial here:

Central question govt still refuses to answer is why deputy national security advisor Matthew Collins refused to give CPS what they wanted - a statement that China is a “current” threat”.thetimes.com/uk/politics/ar…

The claim that Collins’ failure to provide such a statement was because it was not the previous (Tory) government’s position has been thoroughly debunked by legal experts. One retired Supreme Court judge told me it was “absolute rubbish” and “baseless in law”.

Allies of deputy national security advisor insist he would not have refused to provide such a statement, or inserted political statements - including passages from the Labour Party manifesto committing to a “positive relationship with China” - without ministerial direction.

I am told it was “open secret” in Cabinet Office that the request for such a statement had been made and had not been forthcoming in the 14 months since Labour came to power. This does not accord with govt’s line that Collins was working away on his statements in isolation

The government has also been evasive over why they called a meeting on 1 September to discuss the case - which included the country’s most senior civil servants, the head of MI5, the director general of the AG’s office, and a phalanx of FCDO officials - weeks before it collapsed

(One of those present from the Foreign Office had visited the Speaker of the House of Lords and Commons earlier in the year to try and persuade them to lift the ban on Chinese officials visiting Parliament in exchange for sanctions being lifted on a group of peers and ministers)

According to those present, the subject for discussion was how case was going to damage UK/Chinese relations and the “action point” from the meeting was for the Attorney General’s Office - the ministerial dept in charge of the CPS - to speak to the CPS

The govt says this had no bearing on the case collapsing 2 weeks later because Collins had submitted his last statement in August. This completely misses the point because Collins could have submitted new statement containing requested phrase up to the point charges were dropped

The government and CPS have refused to answer what direct - and more likely indirect - conversations were had in August and early September when it appears that senior people in government and civil service knew the case was in peril

There are questions DPP needs to answer re his belief a statement about China being a “current” or “ongoing” threat was needed given view of legal experts - incl former DPP Lord Macdonald - that it was not. But that lets the government off the hook re why they were so unwilling

The ministerial code commits PM and his ministers to “openness”. It states: “Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for doing so.” ENDS