AFP/Getty ImagesThe British government is facing questions after the case against two men accused of spying for China was dismissed just weeks before the trial was to begin.
In September, prosecutors unexpectedly dropped charges, sparking a political controversy over who should be convicted.
The background to the case is complex – so here we will try to tell you how we got here and what its political implications have been.
What was the matter about?
Christopher Cash, a former parliamentary researcher, and Christopher Berry, an academic – who have consistently maintained their innocence – were charged under the Official Secrets Act in April 2024.
He was accused of collecting and providing information harmful to the security and interests of the state between December 2021 and February 2023.
The case against the couple alleges that they passed politically sensitive information to a Chinese intelligence agent, which was then passed on to a senior member of the Chinese Communist Party. Both men deny the allegations.
Why did it collapse?
The head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said the case collapsed because the government could not get evidence showing China was a national security threat.
Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson, 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 for prosecution.
He said that, while there was sufficient evidence when charges were originally brought against both men in April 2024, a precedent set by another espionage case earlier this year meant that China should have been labeled a “national security threat” at the time of the alleged crimes.
However, some legal experts have questioned whether the CPS would need this evidence to proceed with a prosecution.
What was the political outcome?
Downing Street insisted that the decision to drop the charges was made by the CPS, with no minister, member of the government or special adviser involved.
The government said it was disappointed that the case had failed.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer also sought to focus attention on the previous Conservative government, which was in power when the alleged crimes took place.
He argued that prosecution could only be based on the Tory government’s position at the time, saying that China had not been designated a “national security threat”.
Current Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch rejected this, pointing to examples of Tory ministers and government documents describing China as a “threat”.
Several former senior security and legal officials also questioned the government’s reasoning.
The Tories accused the government of refusing to give the CPS the evidence needed to secure a conviction.
He suggested that the prime minister’s national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, who wants closer ties with Beijing, may have intervened.
The government insisted that Powell, who is one of the PM’s most senior advisers and political allies, was not involved in any decisions about the evidence given 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 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 provide evidence without interference” from ministers and special advisers, and that his evidence was “not materially changed”.
After pressure from opposition parties, the government published the statements of witnesses.
What do the witness statements say?
In his witness statements, Mr Collins described China as “the biggest state-based threat to Britain’s economic security” and said the country’s intelligence services “conduct massive espionage operations against Britain”.
In two of his statements presented under Labour, he also stressed that the government is “committed to pursuing positive relations with China”.
His final statement in August said: “The government’s position is that we will cooperate where possible; compete where needed; and challenge where it is necessary, including on national security issues.”
The Conservatives described the language as “simply removed” from Labor’s 2024 election manifesto and questioned whether any government adviser or minister had suggested it should be included. The government denied this.
The Tories argued that it also undermines the government’s insistence that the statements reflect previous conservative policy on China.
Government sources said Mr Collins was only presenting the broader context about the government’s approach to China and that all that mattered in this case was the conservative position at the time of the alleged crimes.
Meanwhile, critics of CPS suggested there was still enough evidence to put the case before a jury.
Can a similar incident happen again?
A report by the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy (JCNSS) points to “serious systemic failures”, and warns that these should not be treated as “one-offs”.
The report found no evidence of a conspiracy to thwart the prosecution through a “coordinated high-level effort”, “deliberate efforts to obstruct the prosecution” or “bypassing constitutional safeguards”.
However, both the government and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) faced criticism for a process beset by “confusion and misplaced expectations” and “deficiencies in communication, coordination and decision-making”.
The cross-party group of MPs and peers on the committee accepted the CPS’s claim that the trial would have been undermined if central expert prosecution witness Mr Collins had refused to describe China as an active threat.
But he found that the CPS had failed to take the “common sense interpretation of the words” provided by Mr Collins, saying “in our view it is clear that … these constitute a more general active threat to the national security of the United Kingdom”.
The committee recommended formalizing principles for handling sensitive cases between the Cabinet Office, security services and the CPS, including setting up a formal case “conference” on new allegations to avoid such “lack of clarity” over evidence in future.
Why is this a problem for the government?
Since last year’s general election, Labor has sought closer trade ties with China to help achieve its goal of growing the economy.
The Prime Minister reiterated this objective at the annual Lady Mayoress’s banquet in the City of London, an occasion traditionally used to set foreign policy for the coming year.
Sir Keir criticized successive Conservative governments for “blowing hot and cold” with China, dismissing both a “golden age” under Boris Johnson and an “ice age” that prioritized singling out China as the enemy.
Instead, the Prime Minister said he wanted to chart a course that protects the UK’s national security interests; As well as collaborating on export opportunities around finance, pharmaceuticals and creative industries.
His speech followed an unusual MI5 alert about Chinese spies targeting MPs and parliamentary staff “on a large scale” through two LinkedIn profiles, which the Chinese embassy dismissed as “pure fabrication”.
The government is expected to approve a new Chinese embassy on the site of the former Royal Mint Court, close to the City of London, despite concerns that its proximity to fiber optic cables carrying huge amounts of highly sensitive data could pose a spying risk.
The decision on the so-called mega embassy has been delayed several times and is now expected on January 20 in the new year.
<a href