Downing Street is facing mounting scrutiny after confirming that Jonathan Powell, the national security adviser to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, will answer questions from Parliament about the collapse of a high-profile espionage case involving alleged Chinese spies. However, his appearance before the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy will be held behind closed doors, a decision that has sparked criticism from across the political spectrum and raised fresh concerns about transparency in handling national security matters.
The case at the center of the controversy involved Christopher Cash, a 30-year-old former parliamentary researcher from Whitechapel, and Christopher Berry, a 33-year-old teacher from Witney, Oxfordshire. Both men were accused of passing secrets to Beijing, allegations that they have consistently denied. On September 15, 2025, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) dropped all charges against the pair, citing an "evidential failure"—meaning the case could not meet the legal threshold required for prosecution under the Official Secrets Act. According to The Sunday Times, senior Whitehall officials, including Powell and the Foreign Office’s top civil servant Sir Oliver Robbins, had met to discuss the trial prior to the decision, fueling speculation about possible government interference.
Downing Street, however, has firmly denied any such involvement. As reported by The Daily Mail, a spokesperson for the Prime Minister stated, "The suggestion that the Government withheld evidence, withdrew witnesses, or restricted the ability of witnesses to draw on particular bits of evidence are all untrue." Officials emphasized that the CPS acted independently, and the government’s evidence was based on the national security strategy in place during the period of the alleged offenses—between 2021 and 2023, when the Conservatives were in power. During that time, China was officially referred to as a "challenge," not an "enemy," a distinction that proved pivotal in the legal proceedings.
This nuance became a crucial sticking point. Prosecutors would have needed to prove that Cash and Berry were acting on behalf of an "enemy" to secure a conviction under the Official Secrets Act. According to The Sunday Times, Powell reportedly told a briefing that the government’s evidence would be based on the national security strategy, which does not label China as an enemy. Legal experts say this made successful prosecution under the Act virtually impossible. The government’s current position, as articulated by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, continues to describe China as a "challenge," underscoring a "hard-headed, realistic approach" to relations with Beijing as Labour seeks to rebuild trade ties and stimulate economic growth.
The fallout from the case’s collapse has been swift and intense. Senior Conservative figures have accused Labour ministers of lacking transparency and called for answers from Sir Keir Starmer and his advisers. Former Defence Secretary Sir Gavin Williamson, who sits on the joint committee set to question Powell, told The Daily Mail, "With such a high level of public interest in this case, it would be beneficial for Mr Powell and for Parliament for him to set out quite clearly his involvement or non-involvement. There’s an ability for part of the session to be in private and part in public. I think he has a whole series of questions he’s got to answer." Williamson also called for a ministerial statement in the Commons as soon as Parliament returns from recess, reflecting widespread demands for public accountability.
Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle is even considering bringing a private prosecution against Cash and Berry after the CPS dropped the original charges. However, legal experts and the Daily Mail report that such an effort is unlikely to succeed. The Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Stephen Parkinson, has the authority to take over any private prosecution and discontinue it if it does not meet the evidential test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. This means that Cash and Berry are unlikely to face any further prosecution, especially since Scotland Yard has no plans to pursue them for other offenses, including lesser crimes such as breaches of data protection rules.
Political tensions have only heightened as details of the case have emerged. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp, speaking at the Conservative Party conference, insisted that Labour ministers must have influenced the decision not to categorize China as an enemy, despite the fact that senior Tories at the time also refrained from using such language. Philp told Politico, "Apparently, that was an instruction given by Olly Robbins and by Jonathan Powell. I can’t imagine Jonathan Powell, who’s one of Keir Starmer’s closest and most senior advisers, would have done that without discussing it with the Prime Minister first, so Keir Starmer now has some very serious questions to personally answer." Philp’s remarks underscore the deep suspicion among opposition MPs that the government’s approach to China may be driven by diplomatic and economic considerations rather than security imperatives.
For its part, Downing Street has continued to defend both the process and the individuals involved. The Prime Minister’s press secretary confirmed that ministers retain confidence in chief prosecutor Stephen Parkinson, noting, "It is obviously for the CPS to take decisions on the evidential threshold which they take cases forward, and they obviously judged that that threshold was met at the time." The spokesperson added that the government’s evidence "did not materially change, not least because it was based on the previous government’s policy, and previous governments’ policy can’t change." This defense points to the broader context: the legal framework and definitions in use at the time of the alleged offenses, and the continuity of policy across administrations.
The controversy arrives at a moment of transition in the UK’s approach to espionage and national security. Since the period in question, the Official Secrets Act has been superseded by the National Security Act, which provides a new framework for prosecuting espionage cases. While the new legislation may clarify some of the ambiguities that hampered the Cash and Berry case, it does little to address the sense of frustration among MPs, campaigners, and the public over the handling of what many see as one of the most significant alleged breaches of parliamentary security in decades.
Human rights advocate Luke de Pulford of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China voiced the concerns of many, telling The Daily Mail, "We need a full public account of how and why the most significant alleged breach of parliamentary security in decades has gone unpunished." His call echoes a broader demand for transparency and accountability that has yet to be satisfied.
As the dust settles, the government’s insistence on closed-door hearings and its reliance on procedural defenses have done little to quell public unease. With key questions still unanswered and the possibility of further prosecutions fading, the episode has left a lingering sense of unfinished business in Westminster—and a warning about the challenges of balancing national security, legal rigor, and international diplomacy in an increasingly complex world.
