Alleged Spying Case: Role of Attorney General’s Office

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Solicitor General if she will make a statement about the role of the Attorney General’s Office in the decision to drop the China spy prosecution.

[The Solicitor General (Ellie Reeves)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this urgent question, following the deeply disappointing collapse of the prosecution case concerning two individuals charged under the Official Secrets Act 1911.

It is a bedrock constitutional principle that prosecutions in this country are free from political influence. This means that it is prosecutors, not politicians, who decide which cases to prosecute; it is prosecutors, not politicians, who decide what evidence will be used at criminal trials; and it is prosecutors, not politicians, who decide when cases should be dropped.

Although individual decisions are made independently and protected from political influence, the Crown Prosecution Service as an organisation is superintended by the Attorney General by virtue of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. The details of what that means in practice are set out in the framework agreement between the Law Officers and the Director of Public Prosecutions, signed by the then Attorney General under the previous Government. The framework makes it plain that the role of the CPS is to take independent decisions on individual cases referred to it by the police and other criminal investigation authorities based on the evidence available and the public interest in pursuing a prosecution, which accords with the code for Crown prosecutors.

There are a limited number of offences, including those under the Official Secrets Act, for which Parliament has made statutory provision requiring the Attorney General’s consent to prosecute in individual cases. In doing so, the Law Officer acts in a quasi-judicial capacity independently of Government and applies the same two- stage test as the code. Consent was given by my predecessor on 3 April 2024. Following that date, no Law Officer intervened in the case at any stage; it would have been wholly inappropriate for them to do so.

Once consent is given, the Law Officer plays no ongoing role. If the prosecutor contemplates dropping the case because of evidential reasons, they are required to inform the Attorney General of the decision as soon as it has been taken. That is what happened in this case. The DPP and senior Treasury counsel have already confirmed that the decision to offer no evidence in this case was made without any political influence, and the Cabinet Secretary, Director of Public Prosecutions, Attorney General and Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will all give written and oral evidence to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy this and next week.

The ongoing disinformation around the collapse of this case is now distracting from the most important issue that we should all be focused on, which is how the Government can work across parties and with the UK law enforcement community to ensure that Chinese espionage and interference is not successful in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

Let me cut to the chase. It is standard practice for the CPS to inform the Attorney General if a case of political significance that had required Attorney General consent in the first place is likely to be dropped. We are told that the Attorney General was informed that this case was at risk but had not formally been ended in August. Is this correct? Can the Solicitor General provide the exact date of that meeting?

It would have been the Attorney General’s duty to ask why the case was at risk. That does not mean seeking to change the independent judgment of the CPS on whether to proceed, but it could and should have meant asking and ensuring that more evidence be provided to the CPS at its request. It was abundantly clear that the CPS was asking for further evidence on the question of whether China posed a current threat to national security, so the Attorney General and the Government had a decision to make: whether to provide the evidence or not, even if they thought that it was excessive to do so.

The Attorney General must have understood what was required. We are told that he is an eminent lawyer, so what did he do the moment he knew? Who did he inform within Government, and when? Did he inform the Prime Minister or his office? Did he take any steps to ensure that the evidence was provided?

We know that on 1 September the director general of the AG’s Office attended a meeting at which the case was discussed. At that point, the case could still have been salvaged. At that meeting, did the Attorney General’s Office push for further evidence to be provided? Following that meeting, The Sunday Times has reported that the Attorney General’s Office was asked to speak to the CPS. Can the SG confirm whether anyone from the AGO spoke directly or indirectly to the CPS?

The AG knew that the case was going to collapse in August. He knew what was required to save it, but—unless the Solicitor General can provide a compelling account today—we must all conclude that the AG, on behalf of the Government, chose not to provide it. He may not have killed the case, but he allowed it to die. There are examples in the recent past of AGs having the candour to come to the House and explain that the Government and the prosecuting authorities have chosen to drop cases that raise the highest national security questions for diplomatic reasons. Will the SG today have the candour to do exactly the same with this case?

[The Solicitor General]

Today we have heard from the shadow Justice Secretary yet more of the baseless smears that have characterised the Conservative party’s approach to a matter of such importance to this House and the whole nation. He knows that the Attorney General will give evidence next week—as soon as Tuesday—to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy.

Like me, the shadow Justice Secretary trained and practised in law, so he should know the importance of consistency when putting a case together. Yet his words today have brought only more confusion to the Conservatives’ chaotic approach. First, they accused the Government of political interference in this case without evidence. When that was disproven, they argued that we did not interfere but should have interfered in an independent prosecution—so which is it? Their approach has served only to distract from their own failings, and frankly does a disservice to the history and heritage of their party.

I respectfully remind the House that part of the reason we find ourselves in this situation is because the Conservatives spent their years in government fighting among themselves and not fixing glaring holes in our national security laws. The charges in this case were brought under the Official Secrets Act—

[Robert Jenrick]

You are supposed to be a Law Officer—answer the questions.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Jenrick, when you get a UQ, you get your time, and I want you to be heard in silence, quite rightly, because this is an important issue that affects this House—but I do not need barracking from the Opposition Benches. I want you to help me. If you wish to catch my eye in the future, this is not the best way to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

I thank the hon. Member for those kind words. This case was brought under the Official Secrets Act. There is now new legislation in place, which means it is no longer necessary to prove the enemy part of the test in order to bring a successful prosecution. That will make it easier to bring prosecutions of this nature in future. It is regretful that the previous Government did not bring in this legislation sooner. Had they done so, I expect we would not have found ourselves in the situation we are in today.

[Robert Jenrick]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I ask your advice? Unusually, the Attorney General does not sit in the House of Commons. When I submitted written parliamentary questions to the Attorney General, they were answered by the Solicitor General, but the Solicitor General refused to provide answers for the Attorney General, only answering for herself. Today, understandably, the Attorney General could not come to the House because he is not a Member of the House, but the Solicitor General repeatedly refused to give answers on behalf of the Attorney General. She referred to the Attorney General’s written answers and to a Select Committee hearing which is ordinarily held in private. How does the House of Commons hold the Attorney General to account?

[Mr Speaker]

There is a collective responsibility for the Government to answer within this House—the right hon. Member is absolutely right to ask the question—but I am not responsible for the answers that the Solicitor General provides. This goes back to the frustration under the previous Administration, when the Foreign Secretary sat in the Lords. My view is that it is much harder, but there is a collective responsibility that questions will be answered in this House. I am not going to keep the debate going now.