The controversy over the UK’s collapsed China spy case explained | UK News

The UK government is facing questions after a case against two men accused of spying for China collapsed just weeks before the trial was due to go ahead.

In September, prosecutors unexpectedly dropped the charges, sparking a political row over who was to blame.

The background to the case is complicated – so here we try to walk you through how we got here and the political impact.

Christopher Cash, a former parliamentary researcher, and Christopher Berry, an academic – who have both consistently maintained their innocence – were charged under the Official Secrets Act in April 2024.

They were accused of gathering and providing information prejudicial to the safety and interests of the state between December 2021 and February 2023.

The case against the pair alleges that they passed politically sensitive information to a Chinese intelligence agent, which was then handed to a senior member of the Chinese Communist Party. Both men deny the allegations.

The head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said the case collapsed because evidence could not be obtained from the government referring to China as a national security threat.

Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson, who is the most senior prosecutor in England and Wales, said the CPS had tried to obtain further evidence from the government “over many months” and that witness statements did not meet the threshold to prosecute.

He said that, while there was sufficient evidence when charges were originally brought against the two men in April 2024, a precedent set by another spying case earlier this year meant China would need to have been labelled a “threat to national security” at the time of the alleged offences.

However, some legal experts have questioned whether the CPS would have needed this evidence to go ahead with the prosecution.

Downing Street insisted the decision to drop charges was made by the CPS, with no minister, member of government or special adviser involved.

The government maintained that it was frustrated the trial collapsed.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer also sought to shift the focus to the previous Conservative government, which was in power when the alleged offences took place.

He argued the prosecution could only be based on the Tory government’s position at that time, when he says China was not designated a “threat to national security”.

Current Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch rejected this, pointing to examples of Tory ministers and government documents describing China as a “threat”.

A number of former senior security and legal officials also questioned the government’s argument.

The Tories accused the government of refusing to give the CPS the evidence it needed to secure convictions.

They suggested that the PM’s national security adviser Jonathan Powell, who has sought closer relations with Beijing, may have intervened.

The government insisted Powell, who is one of the PM’s most senior advisers and political allies, was not involved in any decisions about the evidence provided in the case.

It said deputy national security adviser Matthew Collins, a civil servant, provided witness statements for the government – one in December 2023 under the Conservatives, and two further statements in February and August this year after Labour took office.

Security minister Dan Jarvis told MPs that Mr Collins was given “full freedom to provide evidence without interference” from ministers and special advisers, and that his evidence did not “materially change”.

The government published the witness statements, following pressure from opposition parties.

In his witness statements, Mr Collins describes China as “the biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security” and says the country’s intelligence services “conduct large-scale espionage operations against the UK”.

In his two statements submitted under Labour, he also emphasises that the government is “committed to pursuing a positive relationship with China”.

His final statement from August adds: “The government’s position is that we will co-operate where we can; compete where we need to; and challenge where we must, including on issues of national security.”

The Conservatives pointed to this language as being “directly lifted” from Labour’s 2024 election manifesto and have questioned whether a government adviser or minister suggested it should be included. The government denied this.

The Tories argued that it also undermines the government’s insistence that the statements reflected the previous Conservative policy on China.

Government sources said Mr Collins was merely offering wider context about the government’s approach to China and that all that mattered in the case was the Conservative position at the time of the alleged offences.

Meanwhile, critics of the CPS suggested there was still sufficient evidence to put the case before a jury.

A report from the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy (JCNSS) points to “serious systemic failures”, and warns these should not be treated as a “one-off”.

The report found no evidence of a conspiracy to sabotage the prosecution, either through “a co-ordinated high-level effort”, “deliberate efforts to obstruct the prosecution” or to “circumvent constitutional safeguards”.

However, both the government and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) came under fire for a process beset by “confusion and misaligned expectations” and “deficiencies in communications, co-ordination and decision-making”.

The cross-party group of MPs and peers on the committee acknowledged the CPS’s assertion that the case would have been undermined at trial if Mr Collins, the central expert prosecution witness, refused to describe China as an active threat.

But they found the CPS had failed to take “common sense interpretations of the wording provided” by Mr Collins, adding “in our view it is plain that… these amounted to a more general active threat to the United Kingdom’s national security”.

The committee recommended formalising principles for handling sensitive cases between the Cabinet Office, security services and the CPS, including establishing a formal case “conference” on new charges to avoid such a “lack of clarity” over the evidence in future.

Since last year’s general election, Labour has sought closer trade ties with China to help achieve its aim of growing the economy.

The prime minister reiterated this aim at the annual Lady Mayor’s banquet in the City of London, the occasion traditionally used to set out foreign policy for the year ahead.

Sir Keir criticised successive Conservative governments for “blowing hot and cold” with China, rejecting both the “golden age” under Boris Johnson and the “Ice Age” espoused by those preferring to freeze China out as an enemy.

Instead, the prime minister said he wanted to chart a course that protects the UK’s national security interests; at the same time cooperating on export opportunities around finance, pharmaceuticals and the creative industries.

His speech follows an unusual MI5 alert about Chinese spies targeting MPs and parliamentary staff “at scale” through two LinkedIn profiles, which the Chinese embassy dismissed as “pure fabrication”.

The government is also expected to approve a new Chinese embassy on the site of the former Royal Mint Court, close to the City of London, despite concerns its proximity to fibre optic cables carrying vast quantities of highly sensitive data could pose an espionage risk.

The decision on the so-called mega embassy has been delayed several times and is now expected in the new year, on 20 January.