China Spy Case Fails Over Threat Label

Espionage Case Against China Suspects Scrapped Amid Government Stance Row

A significant espionage case involving two British men suspected of working for Beijing has dramatically fallen apart, sparking a fierce political firestorm. England's top prosecutor revealed the legal action failed because the government was unwilling to supply formal evidence that defined China as a danger to the nation's security, a vital component for any conviction under outdated secrecy legislation.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) withdrew all legal action against Christopher Cash, a one-time parliamentary aide, and academic Christopher Berry, only weeks before their trial was set to begin. This sudden cessation of proceedings has drawn intense scrutiny towards the government's foreign policy, its legal approach, and the careful equilibrium it attempts to maintain with the Asian superpower. The consequences have revealed profound disagreements on handling relations with Beijing and posed pressing questions about UK law's capacity to address contemporary espionage.

A Prosecution in Tatters

In a remarkable public statement, the chief prosecutor, Stephen Parkinson, placed responsibility directly with the government. He detailed how his prosecutors had spent a prolonged period attempting to secure witness testimony from officials that specifically classified China as a national security danger during the timeframe of the alleged activities, which spanned late 2021 to early 2023.

Parkinson confirmed that although several statements were provided, none fulfilled this distinct legal condition. He made it clear that without such a definitive declaration, the legal team could not meet the proof standard required by the Official Secrets Act of 1911. Parkinson wrote in correspondence to parliamentary committees that the legal action could not move forward once this became clear. He called the move "unusual" but vital given the government briefings on the topic. The outcome has caused many to question the consistency of Britain's official position on China.

The Legal Impasse

The entire legal action depended on the archaic phrasing within the 1911 Official Secrets Act. To win a conviction for spying under this law from another era, the legal team is required to show that a person gave information to an "enemy." While the UK is not formally at war with China, judicial history had determined that an "enemy" could be construed as a state that presents a danger to national security.

This interpretation was brought into sharper focus in 2024 through a separate, victorious legal action against six Bulgarian citizens convicted of espionage for Russia. In that instance, a High Court judgment clarified that the term "enemy" covers any nation presenting a danger to UK national security during the period of the alleged crime. This decision effectively elevated the standard of proof for the case against Cash and Berry, initiating the CPS's ultimately unsuccessful search for a conclusive government declaration on China's official status.

Political Firestorm Ignites

The trial's abandonment quickly spiralled into a heated political conflict. The Conservative opposition levelled accusations that the Labour administration intentionally caused the trial's failure, suggesting the prime minister was seeking to appease Beijing. Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, alleged during her party conference address that Labour had consciously engineered the collapse because the prime minister wished to court favour with the Chinese state. Senior Tories insisted that Sir Keir Starmer owed Parliament a complete account.

Downing Street has strongly refuted these claims. Sir Keir, who previously served as DPP, shifted the focus onto the preceding Conservative government. He contended that the legal action was constrained by the official government position on China when the supposed spying happened. At that time, the Tories had used terminology describing China as a major challenge for the era, a phrase that fell short of the "threat" classification prosecutors later needed. Sir Keir maintained this was a legal issue, not a political one, stressing that legal action must be based on the situation that existed when the supposed crime was committed.

The Individuals and the Accusations

The two men at the heart of the controversy, Christopher Berry, 33, and Christopher Cash, 30, had always refuted the claims against them. Cash, a resident of Whitechapel in the capital's east, was employed as an aide in Parliament, working for senior Conservative MP Alicia Kearns, chair of the prestigious Foreign Affairs Select Committee. This position afforded him contact with politicians and sensitive conversations regarding UK foreign policy.

Berry, an educator from Witney, Oxfordshire, had spent time working in China. Police took them into custody in March of 2023 after an inquiry led by counter-terror units. They were accused of collecting and sharing material harmful to the nation's security and welfare between late 2021 and early 2023. The exact nature of this material was not revealed in public, but the affair caused considerable alarm in Westminster about the risk of foreign infiltration. Both men asserted their innocence from the beginning.

China's Caustic Reply

Beijing's commentary on the matter has been consistently sharp and dismissive. The London embassy representing China immediately described the spying claims as baseless fiction and damaging defamation. A spokesperson reaffirmed this view after the trial was halted, flatly denying any suggestion that China had guided British citizens to acquire intelligence.

In a powerfully phrased statement, the embassy called on some figures in Britain to end what it termed a self-manufactured political drama against China. The language is indicative of Beijing's wider approach to pushing back against perceived Western antagonism and efforts to check its international standing. The prosecution's failure is likely seen in Beijing as a confirmation of its stance and an indicator of political incoherence in the UK.

Wider Security Alarms

The case's dissolution is a sharp contrast to the increasingly grave alerts from Britain's own intelligence services about the extent of Chinese espionage. Ken McCallum, who heads MI5, warned in 2023 of a persistent and widespread campaign of Chinese espionage. He disclosed that Chinese operatives had made clandestine online approaches to thousands of individuals in Britain, using professional social media platforms to try and obtain valuable commercial and technological information.

McCallum's alerts were reinforced in a July 2023 assessment from the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC). That report found China had successfully infiltrated all areas of Britain's economy and that the governmental reaction had been insufficient. The ISC's report depicted a sophisticated and widespread intelligence danger that multiple governments had not properly addressed, adding credibility to critiques that official policy has failed to match the real-world risk.

A Diplomatic Reconciliation?

The timing of the trial's end is especially delicate, happening as the Labour administration works on resetting its diplomatic and commercial relationship with China. Since entering government, the administration has started a government-wide review of the connection, indicating a shift toward a more practical policy. This has included several high-level diplomatic meetings designed to encourage conversation.

David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, travelled to China in October 2024, only the second person in his role to do so over a six-year period. On his visit, Lammy conferred with Wang Yi, the Chinese Foreign Minister, and spoke of discovering practical answers for difficult problems. He emphasised that open communication was crucial for addressing worldwide concerns like climate change and financial stability, while still discussing difficult topics like human rights and Russia's war in Ukraine.

The Adviser's Unannounced Journey

Adding another layer to the government's engagement policy was a trip to Beijing in July by one of Sir Keir Starmer's most trusted aides, Jonathan Powell, the National Security Adviser. The trip was not publicised by British officials and came to light only when Chinese state media revealed information about Powell's discussion with Wang Yi, the Foreign Minister.

The Chinese report stated that Powell conveyed Britain's wish to improve talks and connections with China to forge a durable, stable, and functional partnership. This private diplomacy, taking place as the CPS was having trouble getting its central piece of evidence, has prompted theories that political motives regarding the UK-China dynamic might have shaped how the espionage case was managed. Critics posit that the UK government was not prepared to accept the diplomatic consequences of a public trial.

Legal Experts Offer Contrasting Views

Legal commentators have conveyed both astonishment and worry regarding the official reason for the prosecution's collapse. Lord Macdonald, a former DPP, suggested to the BBC that the CPS might have been excessively particular with its requirements. He contended that prosecutors could have established the threat from China just by showing evidence of it enlisting UK citizens for espionage, instead of needing a formal government statement that could create diplomatic friction.

Other legal experts have raised doubts about whether the High Court decision in the Bulgarian case truly made the government's testimony essential. Some believe the ruling actually widened the scope of what constitutes an "enemy," making it simpler, not more difficult, to bring legal action. This implies that the CPS either misinterpreted the legal context or that other, undisclosed factors led to the case being dropped so suddenly before it began.

A "Muddle" in Government

Dominic Grieve, a one-time Attorney General, described the situation as being deeply confused. He informed the BBC that it seemed there was a basic oversight when the case began regarding the proof needed for a conviction in court. Grieve implied that a crucial detail was simply overlooked concerning the requirement to officially confirm China's status as an enemy, as defined by the 1911 Act.

Grieve's analysis suggests a disconnect between prosecutors, intelligence services, and government ministries. The inability to harmonise the legal approach with the political and diplomatic context of the UK-China relationship appears to have been a critical misstep. This situation has resulted in demands for improved clarity and a more unified government-wide strategy for national security cases with complicated geopolitical elements.

National Security Ramifications

The failure of this major case carries serious weight for UK national security. It risks fostering a view that the UK cannot, or will not, forcefully pursue legal action against state-backed spying, especially when it concerns an economic giant like China. This result might encourage foreign intelligence agencies, leading them to believe they can act with a reduced chance of facing significant legal repercussions in Britain.

Moreover, the abandoned prosecution provides a de facto shield for any espionage carried out by China in the 2021-2023 window, as any comparable case under the 1911 Act would encounter the same legal obstacle. This reveals a significant weakness in Britain's legal defences. While the new National Security Act of 2023 has modernised the laws, it does not apply retroactively and cannot be used for the allegations involving Cash and Berry.

The Way Forward

Following the controversy, there is mounting pressure for a complete inquiry into the reasons for the prosecution's failure. Jonathan Hall KC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, has said the public reasons provided so far are unsatisfactory and perplexing, confirming he is now examining the issue. He insisted that China is unquestionably a danger to the nation's security and that the public is owed a more thorough explanation of the events.

The government is now faced with the challenging job of restoring faith in its capacity to shield the nation from hostile foreign powers. This will demand not just a clear and reliable foreign policy towards China, but also a guarantee that the legal and institutional systems for handling espionage cases are adequate for the task. This entire episode is a potent reminder that diplomatic vagueness and outdated laws are a perilous mix when confronting modern intelligence dangers.