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
Conclusions (4)
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.
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.