The collapse of the high-profile China spy case has thrown the UK's national security apparatus and legal system into the spotlight, sparking fierce debate, finger-pointing, and urgent calls for reform. On October 29, 2025, a parliamentary committee wrapped up its investigation into why the prosecution of Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry—two men accused of passing secrets to Beijing—fell apart at the last minute, despite months of anticipation and public scrutiny.
At the heart of the controversy is a tangled web of outdated laws, conflicting government statements, and accusations of political interference. The attorney general, Lord Richard Hermer, did not mince words when he addressed the committee, forcefully rejecting what he called "disgraceful and baseless" allegations that the prime minister or national security adviser had meddled to halt the prosecution. "It’s also, if I may say, why I deprecate some of the baseless accusations that were leveled against the prime minister and against our national security advisor Mr Powell...that seek to suggest that politicians had somehow improperly interfered in this case to stop a prosecution," Hermer stated, according to The Guardian.
Hermer’s concern reached beyond the reputations of individual politicians. He warned that such claims risk damaging public faith in both national security structures and the criminal justice system. "I am extremely concerned about the impact that this case has on public faith in our national security structures and in our criminal justice system insofar as it intersects with that," he told the committee, welcoming parliamentary scrutiny as a means to restore trust.
The case against Cash, a former parliamentary researcher, and Berry, a teacher, had been built under the 1911 Official Secrets Act—a relic from another era. Prosecutors alleged the two men had handed sensitive information to Chinese agents. Both denied wrongdoing. Ultimately, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) withdrew the case, citing insufficient evidence to secure a conviction. But as the dust settled, it became clear that the prosecution had run aground on more than just a lack of hard proof.
One of the most critical stumbling blocks was the requirement, under the old law, to prove that China was an "enemy" of the UK. As Hermer explained, this definition became a legal minefield, especially when senior government ministers had been publicly reluctant to label China as such. Defence lawyers, he argued, would have seized on statements by Conservative ministers Kemi Badenoch and James Cleverly, both of whom had avoided describing China as a "threat" or "foe" during the relevant period between 2021 and 2023. Hermer told parliament, "There would have been plenty of reference by lawyers defending Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry to Conservative ministers’ policy positions had the trial gone ahead."
James Cleverley, then foreign secretary, had told an audience in his Mansion House speech that it was "impossible, impractical and – most importantly – unwise" to sum up China in a single word such as "threat" or "adversary." Kemi Badenoch, as business secretary, described China as a "challenge" and highlighted its significance in international trade. These public positions, Hermer noted, would have been "brought up in cross-examination as evidence that China was not seen by the government as an enemy at the time of the alleged offences."
Further complicating matters, the CPS’s decision to drop the prosecution was influenced by the deputy national security adviser, Matt Collins, who declined to explicitly call China a "threat" or "active threat" to national security. Collins later clarified that he had provided evidence of a "range of threats" posed by Beijing, but refrained from labeling China a generic threat because that was not the government’s official position at the time. According to The Times, Collins told the committee, "Prosecutors should have known from the outset that he could not provide this statement because it was not official government policy at the time."
Hermer was candid about the limitations of the 1911 Official Secrets Act, calling it "not fit for purpose." He pointed out that the Law Commission had flagged the problematic use of the term "enemy" as early as 2017, warning it would cause difficulties in future espionage prosecutions. "The problem here is [we have] a 110 year old statute that sets an unrealistic test for those who engage in espionage. It simply was not fit for purpose," Hermer said. He praised parliament for finally passing the National Security Act 2023, which replaced the old law and removed the need to prove that information was being passed to an "enemy"—now, prosecutors must only show that information was provided to a foreign power.
"Speaking frankly, I don’t understand why it took parliament so long to pass that. Had that act been in force at the relevant time for this case, between 2021 and 2023, I have no doubt that the prosecution would have proceeded to trial," Hermer told the committee. The new act, he insisted, is "fit for purpose" and will be used whenever credible evidence arises.
The fallout from the case’s collapse has exposed deep rifts between government departments and the CPS. Andy Slaughter, chairman of the Commons justice select committee, described a "farcical" breakdown in communication between the two sides. He argued that better coordination might have saved the trial from falling apart at the last minute. Hermer, for his part, played down the tensions, saying, "They are all extraordinary public servants doing their best—but coming from different angles." Nevertheless, he admitted he was "both surprised and disappointed" when informed the case would not go to trial, but added, "It was not my job as a minister in the government to interfere in the case and ask the CPS to reconsider the decision."
The saga has also reignited debate over the government's approach to China. Documents obtained under freedom of information laws revealed that Kemi Badenoch had sent a delegation of senior officials to China in 2023, even as she claimed to keep the country at "arm’s length" due to security concerns. This apparent contradiction has fueled suspicions and accusations from across the political spectrum.
Meanwhile, Labour ministers have insisted they played no role in the decision to drop the case and did not provide legal advice that led to the government’s inability to call China a threat. Downing Street stated that Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer only learned the trial was collapsing two days before it happened. John Hutton, a former Labour defence secretary, voiced concern that the government's "inherent reticence...to really call out the dangerous nature of Chinese espionage activity" could allow other alleged spies to evade prosecution.
For now, both Cash and Berry—who have consistently denied all wrongdoing—have been formally found not guilty. The committee hearings have ended, but the story is far from over. The UK’s handling of national security prosecutions, its relationship with China, and the adequacy of its espionage laws are all under renewed scrutiny. As Lord Hermer put it, "We now have legislation that is fit for purpose, and we will use that legislation whenever there’s credible evidence that people are seeking to damage the national interest of this country."
In the wake of this collapsed trial, the UK faces a critical test: whether it can restore trust in its justice system and safeguard national security in a rapidly changing world.
