Source · Select Committees · National Security Strategy (Joint Committee)
2nd Report - Espionage cases and the Official Secrets Acts
National Security Strategy (Joint Committee)
HC 1414
Published 3 December 2025
Recommendations
8
Accepted
We do not seek to unpick any of these professional judgements.
Recommendation
We do not seek to unpick any of these professional judgements. In future, however, it is essential that improved communications, common sense, clarity on strategic objectives and appropriate flexibility can be applied to ensure finely balanced judgements ultimately favour the …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government accepts the need for improved communications and will conduct an internal exercise involving the AGO, CPS, and Cabinet Office to produce new guidance for government departments providing evidence in national security prosecutions, which will be shared with the Committee.
Cabinet Office
View Details →
9
Accepted in Part
Many of the problems in this case stemmed from a lack of clarity over the...
Recommendation
Many of the problems in this case stemmed from a lack of clarity over the evidence. Given the complexity of national security cases we recommend establishing a requirement for a formal case conference within 30 days of such charges being …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government agrees with the aim of strengthening coordination and developing guiding principles for future cases, committing to produce a new guidance product with the AGO, CPS, and Cabinet Office to improve understanding of evidential and disclosure requirements, but does not explicitly commit to formal case conferences within 30 days.
Cabinet Office
View Details →
11
Accepted
We recommend that timely acquisition and delivery of evidence should be made a priority in...
Recommendation
We recommend that timely acquisition and delivery of evidence should be made a priority in future. In response to this report the Government should confirm what steps it will take, and commit to implementation within six months. (Recommendation, paragraph 77)
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government agrees that timely evidence acquisition is a priority but disputes the Committee's conclusion of delays, providing a timeline to demonstrate that witness statements were produced in a timely manner despite complex reviews.
Cabinet Office
View Details →
13
Accepted
We recommend the Government clarifies this issue in response to this report.
Recommendation
We recommend the Government clarifies this issue in response to this report. (Recommendation, paragraph 79) Questions of improper influence
Government Response Summary
The government clarifies the DNSA's understanding of his role as a witness of fact providing evidence aligned with government policy, and commits to producing new guidance to provide future clarity on the capacity of government witnesses in national security prosecutions.
Cabinet Office
View Details →
17
Accepted
As the international security environment worsens, we expect the number of national security prosecution cases...
Recommendation
As the international security environment worsens, we expect the number of national security prosecution cases to rise. We urge the Government to avoid characterising the failure of the Cash/Berry case as a one-off peculiarity created solely by outdated legislation: there …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government heeds the Committee's caution regarding "structural parallels" in the National Security Act 2023, committing to carefully handle issues like diplomatic sensitivities and ensuring new, future-focused guidance for government witnesses addresses these challenges in future prosecutions.
Cabinet Office
View Details →
18
Accepted
The Cabinet Office and Security Services must conduct an internal exercise to consider scenarios in...
Recommendation
The Cabinet Office and Security Services must conduct an internal exercise to consider scenarios in which the Government might be asked to provide diplomatically sensitive evidence under the National Security Act 2023. They must then work with legal partners, including …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government commits to an internal exercise led by the AGO, CPS, and Cabinet Office to produce guidance for government departments on providing evidence in national security prosecutions, aiming to formalize principles and improve coordination for sensitive cases.
Cabinet Office
View Details →
19
Accepted
The Cash/Berry case suggests there may be value in providing a degree of top-level support...
Recommendation
The Cash/Berry case suggests there may be value in providing a degree of top-level support to the Deputy National Security Advisers (DNSAs), particularly if they face significant public exposure. We suggest the Government uses the case conference recommended in paragraph …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government accepted the recommendation to consider and review support mechanisms and line management structures for senior officials acting as witnesses in high-profile cases, committing to cover this in new guidance being produced by the AGO, CPS, and Cabinet Office.
Cabinet Office
View Details →
20
Accepted
We acknowledge and commend the important work led by the National Security Adviser and his...
Recommendation
We acknowledge and commend the important work led by the National Security Adviser and his Deputies. We appreciate that there is deep experience and co-operation across the Cabinet Office leadership. We nevertheless recommend that the Government reviews the nature of …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government welcomes the recommendation to review the support and line management structures for DNSAs and other bound witnesses in sensitive cases, confirming this will be specifically covered within the guidance product being developed by the AGO, CPS, and Cabinet Office.
Cabinet Office
View Details →
21
Accepted
The Government should also review the adequacy of high-level support and advice which is made...
Recommendation
The Government should also review the adequacy of high-level support and advice which is made available to bound witnesses in sensitive national security cases. The Government should outline the findings of that review to the Committee within six months. (Recommendation, …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government welcomes the recommendation to review support for bound witnesses in sensitive cases and will cover this specifically as part of the guidance product being developed by the AGO, CPS, and Cabinet Office.
Cabinet Office
View Details →
Conclusions (12)
1
Conclusion
Not Addressed
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 …
Government Response Summary
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.
2
Conclusion
Not Addressed
The Deputy National Security Adviser (DNSA) would not describe China as posing an “active threat” to national security at the relevant time. We acknowledge the position from the Crown Prosecution Service that it would undermine their case that China represented such a threat if the DNSA, their central expert witness, …
Government Response Summary
The government welcomed the committee's findings of no improper influence or obstruction and a recommendation to consider support mechanisms for senior officials acting as witnesses. However, it did not directly address the committee's specific observation about the DNSA's phrasing regarding China as an 'active threat'.
3
Conclusion
Accepted
The witness statements provided by DNSA were however clear that China posed a range of threats to the United Kingdom’s national security. In our view it is plain that, taken together, these amounted to a more general active threat to the United Kingdom’s national security. We appreciate the legal argument …
Government Response Summary
The government concurred with the committee's assessment that the outdated Official Secrets Act 1911 was the root cause of the prosecution's failure, stating the National Security Act 2023 would have allowed the prosecution to proceed. They also acknowledged caution about remaining risks and reiterated the independent professional judgment of the CPS.
4
Conclusion
Accepted
We are surprised that the Crown Prosecution Service considered the evidence available insufficient to survive a submission of ‘no case to answer’ and to be put before the jury. (Conclusion, Paragraph 45)
Government Response Summary
The government acknowledges the committee's findings and will develop new guidance for government departments on providing evidence in national security prosecutions, covering witness capacity, coordination with policing and the CPS, legal advice disclosure, and optimal statement approaches.
5
Conclusion
Accepted
It is regrettable that the prosecution hinged on the testimony of a Government witness who would not state directly that China posed an active threat to national security at the material time. We acknowledge 48 however the arguments from the Crown Prosecution Service that, once the decision had been taken …
Government Response Summary
The government welcomed the committee's conclusion and, in response to the implied issues, committed to producing new guidance on government witnesses in national security prosecutions, covering witness capacity, coordination, legal advice disclosure, and statement formats.
6
Conclusion
Acknowledged
We found evidence of misaligned expectations which contributed to the decision to discontinue the case. In particular, the Deputy National Security Adviser (DNSA) said he was clear from the outset that he would only provide evidence in line with Government policy, whereas the Crown Prosecution Service told us it required …
Government Response Summary
The government acknowledges the Committee's finding of misaligned expectations concerning the DNSA's evidence and his capacity as a witness, and details the DNSA's understanding of his role while committing to develop new guidance to provide future clarity and improve coordination.
7
Conclusion
Acknowledged
We did not find evidence of deliberate efforts to obstruct the prosecution. The sequence of events nevertheless raises some substantial questions of whether the Government officials and counsel working on the DNSA’s witness statements could have found an alternative formulation which remained in line with the government’s overarching position at …
Government Response Summary
The government welcomed the committee's finding that there was no evidence of deliberate efforts to obstruct the prosecution and that the Attorney General acted with constitutional propriety, but did not address the committee's questions regarding alternative evidence formulations or the CPS's legal conclusions.
10
Conclusion
Rejected
Some processes were excessively protracted, with extensive to and fro. From the outside some aspects look shambolic. The process for securing the DNSA’s second witness statement took nearly eight months, for example. The reason for this delay remains obscure to us. (Conclusion, Paragraph 76)
Government Response Summary
The government agreed timely evidence acquisition is a priority but rejected the committee's conclusion of an eight-month delay in securing the DNSA's second witness statement. They provided a detailed timeline and explanation of the complex review process, arguing that work was ongoing throughout.
12
Conclusion
Accepted
We remain uncertain about the capacity in which the DNSA was giving evidence, and the extent to which civil servants can act as witnesses of fact on matters that are not made explicit by government policy. (Conclusion, Paragraph 78)
Government Response Summary
The government explained that the DNSA understood he was giving evidence as a witness of fact based on his experience and position. To provide clarity on this, the government committed to producing new guidance on the capacity of government witnesses in criminal proceedings.
14
Conclusion
Acknowledged
We have considered the circumstances of the meeting held on 1 September and note the proximity of the Crown Prosecution Service decision to discontinue the case two days later. We did not find evidence of improper influence or deliberate efforts to obstruct the prosecution. We note in particular that First …
Government Response Summary
The government welcomed the committee's finding that there was no evidence of improper influence or deliberate efforts to obstruct the prosecution, and thanked them for the clarification regarding the September 1st meeting.
15
Conclusion
Acknowledged
We are satisfied that the current Attorney General acted with constitutional propriety. We are also satisfied that there was nothing inappropriate about the processes for obtaining Law Officer consent to prosecute, or the subsequent process for informing the Attorney that the case was being discontinued. (Conclusion, Paragraph 115)
Government Response Summary
The government welcomed the committee's finding that there was no evidence of improper influence and expressed pleasure that the committee was satisfied the Attorney General and Law Officers acted with constitutional propriety.
16
Conclusion
Not Addressed
We regret that opportunities were not taken to inform the Attorney General of the situation in greater detail earlier on and request his assistance insofar as would be constitutionally appropriate. (Conclusion, Paragraph 116) 50 Lessons learned
Government Response Summary
The government did not address the Committee’s regret that opportunities were missed to inform the Attorney General earlier. Instead, it welcomed findings elsewhere in the report that cleared the government of improper influence or obstruction of the prosecution.