In a development that’s ignited fierce debate across Westminster, the collapse of the high-profile China spy case against Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry has exposed deep divisions over how the United Kingdom defines national security threats—and the role of government policy in criminal prosecutions. The case, which fell apart in September 2025 just weeks before trial, has become a lightning rod for political accusations, legal scrutiny, and questions about the UK’s relationship with Beijing.
At the heart of the controversy lies a single word: “enemy.” According to multiple reports, including detailed letters published by the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy and coverage from BBC News and The Telegraph, the term was initially included in a draft witness statement prepared by Deputy National Security Adviser Matthew Collins. The statement was intended as key evidence in the prosecution of Cash and Berry, who stood accused of passing classified information to Chinese authorities. Both men have consistently denied any wrongdoing.
But as Collins reviewed the draft in late 2023, he made a consequential decision. He removed the reference to China as an “enemy,” explaining in correspondence to MPs that the term “did not reflect government policy” at the time, when the Conservative Party was still in power. “Drafts of a statement provided to DNSA included the term ‘enemy’ but he removed this term from the final draft as it did not reflect government policy,” Collins wrote, as cited in a joint letter with National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell. The final draft was subsequently sent to then Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in December 2023.
The stakes were high. Under the Official Secrets Act 1911, the law used to prosecute Cash and Berry, charges of espionage require evidence that the accused passed information to an “enemy.” As the case unfolded, prosecutors at the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) found themselves in a bind. Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson, in a letter to the parliamentary committee, explained that the CPS had expected Collins to provide clear evidence that China posed a threat to UK national security at the time of the alleged offenses. But as Parkinson put it, “This was a sticking point that could not be overcome.”
Parkinson elaborated: “His [Collins’s] unwillingness to say that at the material time China was an active threat to national security was fatal to the case.” Without this testimony, the prosecution could not meet the legal threshold required to proceed. Drafts reviewed by prosecutors in July 2025 showed that all references to China as an “enemy” or even a “possible enemy” had been deleted—drafts that, under disclosure rules, would likely have been made available to the defense.
Collins’s stance was not a secret. According to Sky News, Counter Terror Police and the CPS were aware of the change before charges were brought. Collins, who submitted three witness statements (one under the Conservatives in December 2023 and two under Labour in 2025), had consistently declined to label China an “enemy.” In meetings with prosecutors, he went further, stating he would “explicitly say that China was not an enemy if asked,” as reported by The Telegraph.
The fallout from the case’s collapse has been swift and acrimonious. The Conservatives have accused Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and his Labour government of letting the case fall apart, with party leader Kemi Badenoch asserting, “the point is that the alleged spies were charged under a Conservative government and they were let off under a Labour government.” Badenoch also emphasized that she had labeled China a “threat to our economy” during her time in office.
Labour, for its part, has pushed back, insisting that the government did not interfere with the prosecution and that the decision to abandon the case was made independently by the CPS. Security Minister Dan Jarvis told MPs, “There is nothing that the prime minister or any other minister could have done at that point, and would have changed what the law and what the policy was under the previous government between 2021 and 2023. Ultimately, it was an entirely independent decision by the CPS to discontinue the case and they have confirmed that they came under no outside pressure to do so.”
Adding to the complexity, the current government has maintained that what matters in such prosecutions is the government’s position at the time of the alleged offenses, not at the time of trial. As the prime minister’s spokesperson reiterated, “The position throughout has been clear that what is relevant in a criminal case of this nature is the government’s position at the time of the alleged offences.”
Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats have criticized both major parties, arguing that the latest revelations “make a mockery of the Conservative leadership’s faux outrage” and calling for more transparency from all sides.
The legal intricacies are just as thorny. A High Court ruling in June 2024 clarified that an “enemy” under the Official Secrets Act is a state that “presently poses an active threat to the UK’s national security.” This prompted the CPS to seek explicit confirmation from Collins regarding China’s status—a confirmation that never came. According to the DPP, it took Collins over a year to confirm to prosecutors that he would not say China posed a threat to UK national security in court.
In the aftermath, the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy has launched a formal inquiry, summoning key figures including Collins, DPP Parkinson, Attorney General Lord Hermer, and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Darren Jones to provide evidence. Lord Hermer, for his part, revealed he was informed on September 3, 2025, that the case would be dropped but was told to keep the information confidential “even from senior colleagues.”
The broader political context is also shaping the debate. Successive UK governments have stopped short of designating China as a formal “threat” or “enemy,” preferring to describe it as an “epoch-defining challenge” or, as Jones put it, a nation that “cannot be reduced to a single word—threat, challenge or opportunity. It presents all these things, which is why we are taking a long-term, strategic approach, rooted in UK national interest.”
Yet, some in the Conservative Party argue that had Rishi Sunak remained in office, his election pledge would have led to China being designated as a threat under new foreign influence laws. The current government, however, has signaled no appetite for such a move, with Jones insisting that ministers were not involved in the decision to drop the charges and that Sir Keir Starmer only learned of the CPS decision days before it was made public.
As the inquiry continues and the political blame game intensifies, one thing is clear: the collapse of the China spy case has laid bare the challenges of prosecuting alleged espionage in an era of shifting geopolitical alliances and evolving definitions of national security. The debate over what constitutes an “enemy” is likely to reverberate in British politics—and the courts—for some time to come.
