(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords Chamber
Lord Hermer (Lab)
I will deal first with the Roussev case and the difficulties the Crime Prosecution Service faced in bringing this prosecution. The noble Lord is quite right that in Roussev, which was a rare case for the courts to look at—the meaning of “enemy” under the 1911 Act—it was said that it can include a threat to national security. That, however, will be a matter of fact and degree, and as the noble Lord will know full well, the jury still has to be satisfied that the country in question is an enemy. The threat is a question of fact and degree, but it still has to be an enemy. At the time relevant to this prosecution, which was between 2021 and 2023, the official position of the Government was that China was not an enemy. Your Lordships’ House will immediately see some of the difficulties that a prosecution would have faced if this had proceeded to trial.
As to the threats China poses to national security, this Government, as indeed did the last Government, set out fully the nature of the threat that it perceived China posed—that is, Mr Collins in his witness statement—as well as the need for this country to engage with China. But this Government will always put national security first.
My Lords, following on from that answer, the Prime Minister has said repeatedly that the prosecution required evidence that the information was linked to an enemy, based on the policy of the previous Government. The Director of Public Prosecutions on Friday said the test was not what the previous Government were prepared to say about China, but whether it was an active threat as a matter of fact. Which of them is right?
Lord Hermer (Lab)
There can be no doubt that for the purposes of an offence said to have been committed between 2021 and 2023, where the test is whether that was provision to an enemy, the question is, were they deemed an enemy during that relevant period, between 2021 and 2023? I do not understand the DPP to be suggesting to the contrary.