Context
The question addresses concerns about the handling of evidence related to an alleged breach of the Official Secrets Act by China. It focuses on whether there was political interference in the process.
Question
Our judicial system is rightly rigorous and independent, which is why the Government’s handling of intelligence that is central to national security, and passing it to prosecutors, matters so much. As the Minister responsible for our state threats framework and domestic security, will the Home Secretary tell the House when she was first alerted to concerns that crucial evidence had not been passed to the Crown Prosecution Service? Does she agree that the public deserve a full and frank account of how two alleged Chinese spies were able to walk free?
Answer from The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
This was an independent decision by the CPS, and we have repeatedly made clear that there was no political interference in the evidence provided. This Government are extremely disappointed with the outcome of this case, and remain concerned about the espionage threat posed to the UK. We are working relentlessly to counter it.
Not addressed: The timing of when the Minister was first alerted to concerns over evidence passing to the CPS was not addressed.
Was this summary accurate? Tell us
How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)