Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has accused Prime Minister Keir Starmer of misleading Parliament and the public over the collapse of the high-profile espionage trial involving two men accused of spying for China.
In a detailed letter sent to the Prime Minister on Saturday 18 October, Ms Badenoch said Mr Starmer and his ministers had made “several statements that have later been shown to be false” in relation to the failed prosecution.
She described the Prime Minister’s conduct as “a breach of trust with MPs and the public” and called on him to “correct the record in the House at the earliest opportunity.”
The letter follows weeks of political and legal fallout after the Crown Prosecution Service abandoned the case, citing insufficient evidence to prove that China met the legal definition of an “enemy” under the Official Secrets Act 1911.
Misleading statements alleged
Badenoch’s letter identifies three main areas in which she claims Starmer misled Parliament and the media.
She first criticises the Prime Minister’s comments during his flight to India on 6 October, when he reportedly said,
“What matters is what the designation [of China] was in 2023, because that’s when the offence was committed and that’s when the relevant period was.”
Badenoch writes that this statement “is not correct,” arguing that “the concept of designation is a ‘red herring’” and that no such formal categorisation of states exists in law. “What was required under the Official Secrets Act was a factual assessment of the threat posed by China,” she added.
Her second charge relates to Mr Starmer’s letter to her of 15 October, in which he wrote,
“The prosecution of the two individuals could only be brought on the basis of the law as it stood at the time… [and] required demonstrating that the position of the then Conservative Government was that China was an enemy.”
Badenoch called this “a non sequitur,” writing that the prosecution needed to establish as “a matter of fact and law” that China was an enemy, not simply rely on the former government’s policy stance.
She further accuses the Prime Minister’s administration of “obfuscation” in its witness statements to the court, arguing that “softening and obfuscation introduced in them contributed to the case’s collapse.”
Dispute over government involvement
The opposition leader also disputes Mr Starmer’s statements to MPs on 15 October, when he told the House of Commons,
“Under this Government, no minister or special adviser played any role in the provision of evidence… no minister or special adviser was involved.”
She contrasts that with a later formulation in his correspondence, where he said no one “placed any pressure on any witness… nor did they seek to influence the outcome of the trial.”
Badenoch cites media reports suggesting senior officials, including National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell, discussed the content of a key witness statement. “It is not clear what role Powell or other special advisers played,” she writes. “The easiest way to put this beyond doubt is to publish all relevant correspondence and records of meetings, and I ask you again to do so.”
National security concerns
Badenoch’s letter concludes with a broader attack on the Government’s handling of relations with China, accusing it of weakness and indecision.
“The effect of the collapse of this critical case for national security is that you have shown Britain is weak in the face of espionage, and have emboldened our enemies to believe they can spy on us with impunity,” she writes.
She also condemns delays to the planning decision on the proposed new Chinese embassy in London, calling it “a weak and spineless approach.”
“It is inconceivable that this decision would be delayed for any other reason than because ministers hope they will be able to approve it when public attention is less focused on China,” she added.
Downing Street response
Downing Street has previously denied any ministerial involvement in the collapsed case, describing suggestions that the Prime Minister or his advisers interfered as “absurd.” The Government maintains that the case failed because of limitations in the century-old legislation, not because of ministerial action or omissions.
The Prime Minister has said he will publish the Government witness statements “in full” to provide transparency about how the case was handled.
Background
The espionage trial was one of the most sensitive national security cases in recent years. The two defendants, whose identities remain subject to reporting restrictions, were accused of passing sensitive information to Chinese intelligence services. The CPS dropped the case earlier this month after concluding that the legal threshold could not be met under the 1911 Act.
Legal experts have since debated whether the Government’s approach to defining China’s threat level contributed to the failure. The Opposition has argued that the case’s collapse represents a major setback for Britain’s counter-espionage efforts.
Badenoch’s letter increases pressure on Keir Starmer to clarify the Government’s role and statements on the case. The Prime Minister is now facing calls to make a personal statement to the Commons and “correct the record,” as the Opposition leader puts it, “at the earliest opportunity.”
