The controversy over the UK’s collapsed China spy case explained
AFP/Getty ImagesThe UK government is facing questions after the case against two men accused of spying for China collapsed just weeks before the trial was due to begin.
Prosecutors unexpectedly dropped the charges in September, sparking a political debate over who should be charged.
The background of the case is complex; so here we try to tell you how we got here and its political impact.
What was the case about?
Former parliamentary inquiry Christopher Cash and academic Christopher Berry, who have both consistently maintained their innocence, were charged under the Official Secrets Act in April 2024.
They were accused of collecting and providing information harmful to the security and interests of the state between December 2021 and February 2023.
The lawsuit against the pair alleges that they passed politically sensitive information to a Chinese intelligence agent, who then passed it to a senior member of the Chinese Communist Party. Both names deny the allegations.
Why did it crash?
The head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said the case collapsed because the government could not obtain evidence characterizing China as a national security threat.
Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson, the most senior prosecutor in England and Wales, said the CPS had been trying to gather more evidence from the government “for months” and that witness statements did not meet the threshold for prosecution.
He said that although there was sufficient evidence when charges were first laid against the two men in April 2024, the precedent set by another espionage case earlier this year meant China should have been labeled a “threat to national security” at the time of the alleged crimes.
But some legal experts have questioned whether the CPS will need this evidence to proceed with the prosecution.
What were the political consequences?
Downing Street insisted the decision to drop the charges was made by the CPS, without any ministers, members of the government or special advisers.
The government expressed disappointment at the failure of the case.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer also sought to shift attention to the previous Conservative government, which was in power at the time of the alleged crimes.
He said China was not identified as a “threat to national security” and argued that the prosecution could be based solely on the Conservative Party government’s attitude at the time.
Current Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch rejected this, pointing to examples of Conservative ministers and government documents describing China as a “threat”.
Some former senior security and legal officials also questioned the government’s claim.
The Conservatives accused the government of refusing to give the CPS the evidence it needed to secure a conviction.
They suggested the Prime Minister’s national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, may have intervened as he sought closer ties with Beijing.
The government has insisted that Powell, one of the Prime Minister’s most senior advisers and political allies, was not involved in any decisions about the evidence presented in the case.
He said deputy national security adviser Matthew Collins, a civil servant, had given witness statements on behalf of the government – one in December 2023 under the Conservatives and two more in February and August this year after Labor took office.
Security minister Dan Jarvis told MPs that Mr Collins was given “complete freedom to give evidence without interference” from ministers and special advisers and that his evidence was “not materially altered”.
The government published the witness statements following pressure from opposition parties.
What do the witness statements say?
In his witness statements, Mr Collins describes China as “the greatest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security” and says the country’s intelligence services are “conducting large-scale espionage operations against the UK”.
He also stressed in two statements delivered as part of the Labor Party that the government was “committed to maintaining a positive relationship with China.”
His last statement in August added: “The government’s position is that we will cooperate where we can, compete where we need to and challenge where we must, including on national security issues.”
The Conservatives pointed out that the language had been “directly lifted” from Labour’s 2024 election manifesto and questioned whether a government adviser or minister had suggested it should be included. The government denied this.
The Conservatives argued that it also undermined the government’s insistence that the statements reflected previous Conservative policy towards China.
Government sources said Mr Collins was only providing broader context about the government’s approach to China and that all that mattered in the case was the Conservative Party’s conduct at the time of the alleged offences.
Critics of the CPS, meanwhile, argued there was still enough evidence to bring the case to a jury.
Could a similar situation happen again?
A. Report of the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy (JCNSS) He points out “serious systemic failures” and warns that they should not be considered a “one-off”.
The report found no evidence of a conspiracy to sabotage the prosecution through a “coordinated high-level effort,” “deliberate efforts to obstruct prosecution,” or “circumvention of constitutional safeguards.”
But both the government and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) have faced criticism for a process beset by “confusion and misaligned expectations” and “deficiencies in communication, coordination and decision-making”.
A cross-party group of MPs and peers on the committee accepted the CPS’ argument that the case would weaken at trial if the prosecution’s central expert witness, Mr Collins, refused to describe China as an active threat.
But it found that the CPS had failed to take into account “common-sense comments on common-sense statements” provided by Mr Collins, adding that “it is clear that in our view they constitute a more general active threat to the national security of the United Kingdom”.
To avoid such a “lack of clarity” on the evidence in the future, the committee recommended formalizing the principles for handling sensitive cases between the Cabinet Office, the security services and the CPS, including the establishment of a formal prosecution “conference” on new charges.
Why is this a problem for the government?
Since last year’s general election, Labor has sought closer trade relations with China to help achieve its goal of growing the economy.
The Prime Minister reiterated this aim at the annual Lady Mayor’s banquet in the City of London, traditionally used to decide the coming year’s foreign policy.
Sir Keir criticizes successive Conservative governments for being ‘cold and hot’ towards ChinaIt rejects both the “golden age” under Boris Johnson and the “Ice Age” adopted by those who prefer to freeze China as an enemy.
Instead, the prime minister said he wanted to chart a course that protected the UK’s national security interests; We also collaborate on export opportunities in the financial, pharmaceutical and creative industries.
His speech continues in an unusual way Warning from MI5 against Chinese spies He is targeting MPs and parliamentary staff “on a massive scale” through two LinkedIn profiles that the Chinese embassy described as “completely fabricated”.
The government is expected to approve this decision. new chinese embassy It is on the site of the former Royal Mint Court near the City of London, despite concerns that its proximity to fibre-optic cables carrying vast amounts of highly sensitive data could pose an espionage risk.
The decision on the so-called mega embassy has been postponed several times and is now expected to be taken in the new year, that is, on January 20.
