China spy witness 'KNEW ducking million-dollar question about Beijing would torpedo trial'
The key witness in the collapsed China spy trial knew that his refusal to answer the 'million dollar question' about Beijing's threat to national security would collapse the trial, MPs were told on Monday night. Deputy national security adviser (DNSA) Matt Collins said the Crown Prosecution Service was right to call him a 'star witness' – despite his statement being cited as causing the case to fall apart. He told a Commons committee he had explained from the outset that his evidence had to reflect Government policy – which stopped short of referring to China as a threat to national security. The director of public prosecutions (DPP) Stephen Parkinson said it was made clear to Mr Collins' lawyers last December that this would be fatal to the case against China-based English teacher Chris Berry and former parliamentary researcher Chris Cash, who both deny spying for Beijing. 'I have seen the notes from that meeting, and it was made clear that the evidence we sought was critical,' Mr Parkinson told the joint committee on national security strategy. 'The language used was, 'We don't want to get into a situation in which the case is dismissed at half time'. 'At the very latest, [Mr Collins] would have understood this because at the meeting on September 9, it had been made plain that the case could not proceed because he was unable to give the positive answer that had been sought.' The prosecution's lead barrister in the case, Tom Little KC, said Mr Collins had told him personally that he 'would not say that China posed an active threat to national security at the material time'. 'That was in answer to what I regard as the million dollar question in the case, and once he had said that the current prosecution for those charges was effectively unsustainable, that's my carefully reflected position,' he added. Mr Little said there was some discussion about bringing alternative charges against the pair. He said: 'And I want to make it perfectly clear that if I thought there was any way in which I could have properly have prosecuted this using one of the other Official Secrets Acts, then we'd have gone down that route.' Both Mr Parkinson and Mr Collins agreed the DNSA was the correct person to provide the witness statement, despite the fact that being bound to stick to Government policy positions precluded him from framing China in a way that would allow a reasonable prospect of conviction. 'He is an expert,' Mr Parkinson said. 'His job involved providing advice to Cabinet on these issues. So he is the best person.' Mr Little rubbished suggestions that he could have called other experts who might label China a national security threat in addition to, or instead of, Mr Collins. 'I couldn't cross-examine my own witness about inconsistent statements. That's just not permissible in a criminal trial,' he said.