Mark Elliott
@ProfMarkElliott
Followers
35K
Following
3K
Media
736
Statuses
8K
Professor of Public Law, University of Cambridge. Fellow, St Catharine's College, Cambridge. Author of https://t.co/aswwmsSgnC
Cambridge, UK
Joined July 2012
New post | On China, the Official Secrets Act and 'enemies': Is the Prime Minister wrong? https://t.co/2Mg2f06iCN
publiclawforeveryone.com
The Prime Minister has claimed that his government’s hands are tied in relation to whether China constituted an ‘enemy’ for the purpose of a now-dropped criminal prosecution under…
3
5
8
Applications are still open to take part in our 2025-26 'Ask a Justice' programme! Find out more and apply before 5pm on 26 October: https://t.co/ng3QWoNXqX
3
7
11
Part of my hesitation when writing about the China espionage case yesterday ( https://t.co/2Mg2f05KNf) was my uncertainty about how such matters work inside government. Against that background, I find Lord Sedwill's intervention particularly striking.
publiclawforeveryone.com
The Prime Minister has claimed that his government’s hands are tied in relation to whether China constituted an ‘enemy’ for the purpose of a now-dropped criminal prosecution under…
Breaking: Jonathan Powell’s predecessor as national security adviser has said “of course” China is a threat to the UK and expressed puzzlement that the Chinese spy case collapsed. Lord Sedwill, who held the post 2017-2020, said he found the official explanation given for the
0
6
7
Another senior legal mind @ProfMarkElliott demolishes the Prime Minister's excuses in the China spy scandal. https://t.co/bQJn2zMNbP
publiclawforeveryone.com
The Prime Minister has claimed that his government’s hands are tied in relation to whether China constituted an ‘enemy’ for the purpose of a now-dropped criminal prosecution under…
2
10
30
🇨🇳🇬🇧There has been lot of finger pointing over who is responsible for the collapse of the China spy trial. I spoke to Cambridge prof @ProfMarkElliott about what the law says and looked at who is blaming whom. This story isn't going to go away easily... https://t.co/RjkLTCpXJO
news.sky.com
Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry were accused of spying for China but three weeks before their trial was due to start, it was dropped. The pair have denied the allegations.
2
9
30
I've now set out the thoughts in the thread below — in which I suggest the PM's position on dropping the charges in China spying case doesn't add up — in more detail in this blogpost: https://t.co/2Mg2f06iCN
publiclawforeveryone.com
The Prime Minister has claimed that his government’s hands are tied in relation to whether China constituted an ‘enemy’ for the purpose of a now-dropped criminal prosecution under…
I am puzzled by the apparent position of the PM on the dropping of the prosecutions in the alleged China spying cases. I am not an expert in this area so am happy to be corrected. But it seems to me that two things are being conflated. /1
3
10
18
Even if the previous government's position was decisive (which I don't think it is), it's hard to argue that it spoke with one view to the effect that China wasn't a threat to national security at the relevant time (which is the key issue). 11/11
6
12
54
One further thought on this: Here is what the Security Minister (in the previous government) said in 2024: /10
3
26
70
As I say, I am not an expert in this area (so may well be overlooking something important) andI would be interested in the views of those who are. 9/9
2
11
34
Presumably what I have said here aligns with the view of the CPS, otherwise they would not have spent several months (unsuccessfully) seeking evidence from the current government about its view concerning China at the relevant time. /8
1
15
60
... even thought a different government was in office at that time. It would be for the court to weigh the current government's evidence, but the notion that the current government cannot have a view that can constitute evidence is hard to follow. /7
2
15
50
But I can see no basis for that view in the Act or in the case law. In particular, I can see no reason why the current govt could not submit evidence to the effect that, in its view, a given country was an enemy when the alleged offence was committed ... /6
2
16
69
Unless I am misunderstanding it, the PM's position appears to be that the only view that matters is that of the government *at the time of the commission of the alleged offence* such that the current government cannot form an independent view and submit it as evidence. /5
2
17
55
A separate question concerns evidence that might enable a jury to conclude that a given country, eg China, was an enemy at the relevant time (ie at the time of the commission of the alleged offence). /4
1
14
43
The meaning of 'enemy', according to the Court of Appeal, includes 'a country which represents a current threat to the national security of the UK' and involves questions of 'fact and degree' that are ultimately for the jury. /3
1
15
50
Under the (now repealed) Official Secrets Act 1911, as interpreted by the courts (including by the Court of Appeal in Ivanova[2024] EWCA Crim 808, the 'enemy' in question must have been an 'enemy' at the time the offence was committed. That much is uncontroversial. /2
2
14
49
I am puzzled by the apparent position of the PM on the dropping of the prosecutions in the alleged China spying cases. I am not an expert in this area so am happy to be corrected. But it seems to me that two things are being conflated. /1
This does not address the fact the Crown Prosecution Service says it spent months seeking further evidence from government about the threat posed by China — but got nothing. Also, the PM claims his hands were tied by the Conservative govt’s classification of China. Is that
18
115
245
A report on tonight’s Channel 4 News about the devastating funding cuts at @ArthurRankHouse Hospice in Cambridge. It is unconscionable to reduce access to palliative care while simultaneously contemplating the legalisation of medically assisted suicide. https://t.co/7QS6gfxVLB
channel4.com
The UK government wants patients' care to be moved from hospitals into the community.
5
48
103
Devastating news. @ArthurRankHouse are set to lose £1m of their annual funding, potentially closing half their in-patient unit. Is it really right that we legislate for a fully funded assisted suicide service when hospices are struggling for money?
arhc.org.uk
Protect Our Care Devastating funding cuts will close 9 of our 21 Inpatient Unit beds at our Hospice in Cambridge, and have huge implications for local people. One chance to get this right The...
4
36
60
Just as the state contemplates the possibility of a fully-funded assisted dying service, public funding for the award-winning @ArthurRankHouse Hospice in Cambridge is being cut by almost £1m pa, risking the closure of nearly half of its in-patient unit.
arhc.org.uk
Protect Our Care Devastating funding cuts will close 9 of our 21 Inpatient Unit beds at our Hospice in Cambridge, and have huge implications for local people. One chance to get this right The...
0
14
15