Starmer seeks to blame Tories for collapse of China spy trial

The Prime Minister said “all the focus” should be on the Tories who were in power at the time of the alleged offences.

He was speaking after the country’s chief prosecutor blamed ministers for failing to provide the crucial evidence needed to proceed.

The Conservatives have now demanded that the Prime Minister explains himself to Parliament.

Speaking during a trade trip to India, Sir Keir said: “We were disappointed that the trial didn’t proceed, but the position is very clear that the trial would have had to take place on the basis of the situation as it was at the time under the previous Tory government.”

Sir Keir, a former director of public prosecutions (DPP), added: “Now that’s not a political to and fro, that’s a matter of law. You have to prosecute people on the basis of the circumstances at the time of the alleged offence.

Read more: China spy trial collapses after Government refuses to call Beijing a national security threat

Read more: China turns off the taps amid 'mega-embassy' spat with Britain

“So all the focus needs to be on the policy of the Tory government in place then. That’s the only place that the evidence could be focused on. And I think that provides a sort of ray of spotlight into some of the issues that have been swirling around.”

The current (DPP) Stephen Parkinson said the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had tried “over many months” to get the evidence it needed to show China was a threat to national security, but it had not been forthcoming from Sir Keir’s administration.

Critics have pointed to Sir Keir’s attempts to build relations with the world’s second-biggest economy as a possible reason for the Government’s reluctance to label China an “enemy” or threat.

The Government has called China a “sophisticated and persistent challenge” but Sir Keir said it was the previous government’s views which counted in the court case because that was what applied when the alleged offences occurred – and the Tories had not called Xi Jinping’s country a threat, either.

The case against Christopher Cash, a former parliamentary researcher, and Christopher Berry – who both denied charges under the Official Secrets Act – was dropped on September 15.

Sir Keir will face demands from MPs to answer questions about the case when the Commons returns from its conference season break on Monday.

Two MPs have confirmed they will apply for an urgent question in Parliament on Monday, something which Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle – who has serious concerns about the China case – would have to approve.

Sir Keir would not necessarily have to respond personally to any urgent question.

Mr Cash had previously worked for senior Tory MP Alicia Kearns, who called on ministers to “come clean” about the collapse of the case following the DPP’s comments.

She said “The Government must come clean – who is responsible for spiking the prosecution?

“Continued stonewalling only invites further concern of concealment or conspiracy.”

Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Calum Miller said: “It is shocking that a case against two men accused of acting on China’s behalf to acquire secret information from MPs has collapsed because Government ministers and officials have refused to confirm China is a menace.”

In a letter to the chairs of the Commons Home Affairs and Justice Committees, the DPP said the CPS had sought further evidence after a High Court ruling in a separate case involving Bulgarians spying for Russia in the UK meant prosecutors now had to show China represented a threat to national security.

“Efforts to obtain that evidence were made over many months, but notwithstanding the fact that further witness statements were provided, none of these stated that at the time of the offence China represented a threat to national security, and by late August 2025 it was realised that this evidence would not be forthcoming,” Mr Parkinson said.

“When this became apparent, the case could not proceed.”

But Nick Vamos from law firm Peters & Peters, and a former head of special crime at the CPS, questioned Mr Parkinson’s explanation for the collapse of the case.

He said “the explanation from the DPP still doesn’t add up” because the Bulgarian spy case expanded rather than restricted the definition of “enemy”.

“Therefore, either the CPS did not have sufficient evidence to charge the defendants in the first place, or they misunderstood what they needed to prove,” Mr Vamos said.

He said it was “hard to fathom” why the Government refused to provide evidence that China was a threat to national security at the time of the alleged offences, but that “does not explain why the CPS did not ask for that evidence before the defendants were charged”.