Source · Select Committees · National Security Strategy (Joint Committee)
Recommendation 1
1
Not Addressed
The Crown Prosecution Service determined that it required specific evidence that China posed an “active...
Conclusion
The Crown Prosecution Service determined that it required specific evidence that China posed an “active threat” to UK national security at the relevant time, following a Court of Appeal ruling known as “Roussev”. It is not within the Committee’s remit to second guess the decision-making and professional judgement of the independent Crown Prosecution Service and First Senior Treasury Counsel. However, we remain unclear as to why the Court of Appeal ruling altered the legal landscape so significantly. (Conclusion, Paragraph 38)
Government response summary AI-generated
The government's response focuses on clarifying the DNSA's witness statements and timelines rather than directly addressing the Committee's stated unclarity regarding the significant legal impact of the Roussev Court of Appeal ruling.
Summary of the government's response below — read the verbatim text to verify.
Government Response
Not Addressed
HM Government · verbatim extract
Not Addressed
The Government concurs with the Committee’s assessment that the “root cause” of the prosecution’s failure was the use of the Official Secrets Act 1911, which was archaic and fundamentally unfit for purpose. The Attorney General has stated he has “no doubt” that had the National Security Act 2023 been in force at the material time, the prosecution would have proceeded to trial. However, we heed the Committee’s caution that the National Security Act does not negate all risks; we remain committed to carefully handling “structural parallels” under the National Security Act, such as the diplomatic sensitivities surrounding the labelling of individuals as members of foreign intelligence services. The Government will continue to work tirelessly to ensure that we have the most effective structures and processes in place to support law enforcement partners in mitigating and prosecuting foreign espionage wherever we find it and regardless of the nature of our diplomatic relationship with any foreign powers involved. We will also ensure that new guidance on the production of evidence from Government witnesses is future-focused and could be applied to criminal cases brought under a range of national security legislation. We consider that the difficulty posed by the ‘enemy’ test under the Official Secrets Act 1911 has been mostly resolved in the National Security Act. The new guidance will help police, CPS, and government departments work together to clarify evidential and disclosure needs in future prosecutions focusing on the facts in issue and the legal ingredients of the offence charged.
Read the full response on Parliament ↗