Alleged Spying Case: Role of Attorney-General’s Office

Lord Thomas of Gresford Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Attorney-General (Lord Hermer) (Lab)]

I thank the noble and learned Lord for his question. May I just correct a few facts? I was not informed by the DPP on 1 September; I was informed on 3 September. Secondly, and this is an important constitutional point, in our constitutional framework politicians play no role whatever in prosecutions. I was not consulted by the Director of Public Prosecutions; I was informed by the Director of Public Prosecutions after he had reached his decision. That is an important distinction in our constitutional framework which is codified in the framework agreement between my office and the CPS, the current framework agreement being that signed by one of my predecessors, the right honourable Suella Braverman. That dictates that in cases such as this where the prosecution starts with the consent of a law officer, law officers must be consulted if the grounds for dropping a case are public interest grounds, but it draws a contrast where the grounds, as here, are evidential grounds. In those circumstances, the framework makes it plain, quite properly, that the Attorney-General is to be informed, not consulted, as soon as possible after the decision has been made. I hope that answers the noble and learned Lord’s question.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, some 50 years ago last month, I was junior in a trial that took place at Mold Crown Court, prosecuted by the then Attorney-General, Sam Silkin—they earned their spurs in those days by prosecuting in court. An ex-RAF pilot from Valley had knocked on the front door of the Russian consulate, trying to sell them secrets about the Vulcan bombers. The Russians picked up the phone and phoned the Metropolitan Police, and he got nine years. We were not at war with Russia at that time, but then, there was no war in 1911 when the word “enemy” was coined in the statute. By 1913, the courts had extended the word to include a potential enemy. Will the noble and learned Lord kindly tell us again who the Attorney-General was who consented to this prosecution? Was there evidence of the passing of any classified documents or information, as opposed to tittle-tattle, between these two idiots? Was there evidence of money changing hands? Without such evidence, Senior Treasury Counsel, who had the responsibility of presenting the case to the jury, would inevitably advise that the prosecution was weak and might very well fail. Nothing seems to have been discovered in the subsequent 13 months and the case was, very properly, dropped. I have no inside information, but is that analysis correct?

[Lord Hermer (Lab)]

Consent was given by a law officer under the previous Government to this prosecution. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not go into the evidential details in this case. The decision was made by the independent CPS. In this case, the Director of Public Prosecutions also received the assistance of First Senior Treasury Counsel, our most experienced criminal barrister, who advised in the run-up to the intended trial and who will be giving evidence, together with the DPP, in the next hour or so before the JCNSS, where they will no doubt be able to give further evidence of the materials they considered. My experience is of the grave disappointment felt by the hard-working teams in the Crown Prosecution Service—including the Director of Public Prosecutions—and in the National Security Secretariat, all of whom were disappointed that the prosecution could not proceed.