On October 14, 2025, the political storm surrounding the collapsed trial of two men accused of spying for China intensified, as senior Conservatives pressed England’s chief prosecutor to consider restarting the case—if the Government formally designates Beijing a national security threat. The saga, which has seen Downing Street and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) publicly trade blame, now threatens to overshadow Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s administration and spark heated debate in Parliament.
The roots of the controversy stretch back to last month, when the trial of Christopher Cash, a former parliamentary researcher, and Christopher Berry, a teacher, abruptly collapsed. Both men, who have consistently denied any wrongdoing, faced charges of passing secrets to China. However, the prosecution was forced to drop the case after the Government failed to provide evidence supporting the assertion that China represented a threat to the United Kingdom’s national security at the time of the alleged offences. As reported by multiple outlets, including The Telegraph and The Irish News, this evidentiary gap proved fatal for the case.
The fallout has been swift and highly public. Senior Conservatives, including shadow home secretary Chris Philp and shadow Cabinet Office minister Alex Burghart, fired off a letter to director of public prosecutions Stephen Parkinson. Their query was pointed: would the prosecution be revived if the Government provided the necessary evidence and formally declared China a national security threat? The letter, which quickly became public, underscored the political stakes of the decision. According to The Times, their message was simple: “If the Government were to provide the evidence that the Crown Prosecution Service had requested, this would enable you to restart the prosecution.”
But the matter is anything but straightforward. At the heart of the dispute lies a crucial Government witness statement, prepared by Matthew Collins, the deputy national security adviser. Cabinet Secretary Chris Wormald, the country’s most senior civil servant, was reportedly ready to publish Collins’ statement, which had been central to the decision to withdraw the espionage charges. However, lawyers within the CPS were said to have blocked the move, citing concerns over the appropriateness of releasing such evidence outside of a courtroom. According to senior sources cited by The Telegraph, prosecutors concluded during a meeting with Wormald that publication would be “inappropriate.”
The CPS, however, quickly pushed back against this characterization. In a statement to reporters, a spokesperson for the agency insisted, “The statements were provided to us for the purpose of criminal proceedings which are now over. The material contained in them is not ours, and it is a matter for the Government, independently of the CPS, to consider whether or not to make that material public.” In other words, the CPS argued that the ball was firmly in the Government’s court.
This back-and-forth has only added to the confusion and frustration among MPs and the public alike. The Government, for its part, has faced accusations from both the opposition and within its own ranks of mishandling the case and failing to stand up to China. Kemi Badenoch, a prominent Conservative, did not mince words on social media, posting: “If Starmer chose Beijing over Britain, then he should grow a backbone and admit it. If not, why not hand over the evidence or is he too weak to stand up to China?”
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has responded by both defending his administration and redirecting blame toward his Conservative predecessors. According to The Irish News, Starmer told his Cabinet that anyone who had met Matthew Collins “will know he faithfully carries out his job.” His spokesperson added that Collins is “a highly respected securocrat” with “unparalleled experience in working across the national security community to keep the UK safe, secure and prosperous.” The Prime Minister further stressed that all evidence provided by Collins was “based on the law at the time of the offence and the policy position of the government at the time of the offence.”
Starmer has firmly denied that the Labour Government was responsible for the collapse of the case, instead pointing the finger at the Conservatives. He argued that the previous Tory government “declined to describe China either as an enemy or infer that by describing it as a current threat to national security.” This policy stance, he contended, left his administration hamstrung in court when it came time to prove that China posed an active threat during the period in question.
The CPS, for its part, has maintained that the case could not proceed because the Government’s witness statement did not meet the legal threshold for establishing China as a national security threat at the time of the alleged offences. Without such evidence, prosecutors concluded they had no choice but to drop the charges against Cash and Berry.
Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats have entered the fray, urging the Government to publish Collins’ witness statement in full. Calum Miller, the party’s foreign affairs spokesperson, summed up the sentiment of many critics: “If ministers have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear. Failure to come clean will just confirm people’s suspicions of a cover-up and that ministers are more worried about cosying up to China than protecting our national security.”
As the row continues, the issue has become a political football, with each side accusing the other of weakness, cover-ups, or a lack of resolve in the face of alleged Chinese espionage. The timing is particularly fraught, as Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday is expected to see the Government grilled over its handling of the affair. The pressure on Sir Keir Starmer is mounting, with critics demanding answers and greater transparency.
The broader context is hard to ignore. The United Kingdom, like many Western nations, has grown increasingly wary of Chinese influence and alleged espionage in recent years. Parliamentary inquiries, intelligence warnings, and public debates have all pointed to a growing sense of unease about Beijing’s intentions. Yet, as this case demonstrates, translating that unease into concrete legal action is far from simple—especially when the definition of what constitutes a “threat” to national security is itself contested and subject to the shifting winds of government policy.
For now, the fate of Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry remains in limbo. Both men continue to deny any wrongdoing, and the charges against them have been dropped. But the political and legal reverberations of their case are likely to echo for some time, as Britain grapples with how best to defend itself in an era of global uncertainty—and how to hold its leaders accountable for the choices they make in the name of national security.
