Alleged Spying Case: Role of Attorney General’s Office Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Attorney General
Ben Obese-Jecty
Main Page: Ben Obese-Jecty (Conservative - Huntingdon)Department Debates - View all Ben Obese-Jecty's debates with the Attorney General
Alleged Spying Case: Role of Attorney General’s Office
Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts(2 days, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Solicitor General
This case was prosecuted under legislation that was in force when the alleged offences were committed in 2021 to 2023. The law has now changed—it took the Conservative party many years to tighten up national security legislation; it passed with support from Labour Members—and under the legislation as it stands now, it is easier to bring prosecutions of this nature because the enemy test no longer has to be satisfied.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Attorney General has a duty to superintend prosecution agencies. The Government have previously defined superintendence as, inter alia,
“a right for the Attorney General to be consulted and informed about difficult, sensitive and high-profile cases”,
of which this is clearly one. Given that the Attorney General is responsible by statute for the superintendence of the Crown Prosecution Service and overall super- intendency of the DPP, and additionally has the requirement for consent to prosecute certain categories of criminal offences such as those relating to official secrets, what action did the Attorney General take once he had been informed of the potential collapse of the China spying trial?
The Solicitor General
As I have set out, consent to prosecute in this case had to be granted by Law Officers, and that was done under the previous Government. Once consent is granted, it is for the CPS to prosecute a case, rightly without political interference. This case was discontinued by the CPS on evidential grounds, as opposed to public interest grounds. I am sure that the hon. Member is aware of the two-part test for prosecutors. When a case is discontinued on evidential grounds, it is not for the CPS to consult with Law Officers in advance of that. I say again that the Attorney General will first give written evidence this week and then oral evidence on Tuesday.