Calls for accountability are mounting in Westminster after the collapse of a high-profile espionage case against two men accused of spying for China. On October 17, 2025, Members of Parliament demanded that Stephen Parkinson, the director of public prosecutions, provide a fuller explanation as to why charges against parliamentary researcher Christopher Cash, 30, and academic Christopher Berry, 33, were dropped last month. Both men have consistently denied the allegations against them, yet the abrupt end of the prosecution has sent shockwaves through the UK’s security and political establishments.
The case’s downfall, according to Parkinson, stemmed from a lack of sufficient evidence supplied by the government to prove that China posed a direct threat to the United Kingdom’s national security at the relevant time. This requirement, set out under the 1911 Official Secrets Act, demands prosecutors show that any information passed could be “directly or indirectly useful to an enemy”—and crucially, that the country in question was officially recognized as a national security threat when the alleged offences occurred between December 2021 and February 2023.
The collapse has not only triggered frustration among MPs but also reignited debate about the UK’s ability to respond to foreign espionage. In the days following the dropped charges, the government released witness statements that painted a stark picture of Beijing’s intentions. Deputy national security adviser Matthew Collins, in statements published on October 15, 2025, described China as conducting “large scale espionage” against the UK and labeled it “the biggest state-based threat to the country’s economic security.” According to reporting by BBC, these statements were intended to clarify the government’s assessment of the threat posed by China, yet they arrived too late to salvage the prosecution’s case.
The fallout has been swift and multi-layered. The chairs of four parliamentary committees have now given Parkinson a deadline of October 24, 2025, to answer a series of pointed questions about how and why the case unraveled. At the same time, a joint national security committee of MPs and peers has launched a formal inquiry, signaling that Parkinson is likely to be called to give evidence in person. In parallel, the Intelligence and Security Committee has begun a separate probe into the handling of classified material during the prosecution, raising the stakes for both the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the government.
Labour MP Matt Western, who chairs one of the key committees, made it clear that “there are many questions yet to be answered” by both Parkinson and government officials. He added, “The committee would hope to hear from the government and officials as soon as possible.” The urgency is palpable, given the wider context of intensifying concerns over Chinese espionage and influence operations in the UK. As euronews reported, the collapse of the espionage case has only heightened anxiety about the daily threat posed by China, as highlighted in recent statements from the head of MI5.
The legal backdrop to this controversy is as complex as it is consequential. Cash and Berry were charged under the century-old Official Secrets Act, which has rarely been invoked in modern times. The law’s requirement for prosecutors to demonstrate that a suspect has passed on material useful to a recognized enemy has proven a high bar to clear. In a letter to MPs last week, Parkinson explained that a court ruling in a separate case—handed down after the initial charges—meant that only countries officially deemed a threat to national security at the time could be considered “enemies” under the Act. This legal technicality, Parkinson argued, left CPS lawyers unable to proceed without more explicit evidence from the government on China’s status during the relevant period.
Parkinson has stated that the government’s evidence fell “5% short” of what was required to secure a conviction. This narrow margin has become the focus of intense scrutiny, with some MPs questioning why the CPS did not push forward regardless, especially after the government’s subsequent publication of witness statements that unequivocally described China’s hostile activities. The tension has spilled into public view, with Parkinson—appointed director of public prosecutions in September 2023—now at the center of an unusually open row between the CPS and ministers.
The political dimension of the saga is further complicated by Parkinson’s own professional history. Before taking up his current post, Parkinson was a senior partner at Kingsley Napley and had trained as a barrister before becoming a solicitor in 2005. He has not shied away from criticizing his predecessors, notably Sir Keir Starmer, who led the CPS from 2008 to 2013 and is now the prime minister. In a May 2023 interview with The Times, Parkinson described Starmer as “an average DPP,” adding, “he was over-reliant on advice given by others; he had no in-depth experience of prosecuting… he was a defence and human rights lawyer.”
Parkinson’s own path to the top of the legal profession has been anything but conventional. In an interview earlier this year, he recounted how he initially did not apply to university due to poor predicted grades. After receiving better-than-expected results, he took a year out, working as a dustman, on a kibbutz, and as a ballpoint pen salesman in South Africa, before eventually deciding to pursue a career in law. This unorthodox journey, while perhaps endearing to some, has not shielded him from the political and public scrutiny now directed his way.
The broader implications of the case’s collapse are hard to ignore. For one, it has exposed the challenges facing the UK’s legal and security frameworks when it comes to prosecuting alleged foreign spies. The requirement for clear, contemporaneous evidence that a foreign power is an “enemy” under the Official Secrets Act has proven a formidable obstacle—and one that may prompt calls for legislative reform. At the same time, the episode has underscored the difficulties of balancing transparency, national security, and due process in an era of escalating geopolitical rivalry.
Meanwhile, the accused—Cash and Berry—remain publicly adamant in their denials, with neither man convicted nor exonerated in a court of law. Their case has become a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over how Britain should respond to the perceived threat from China, both in terms of intelligence gathering and legal response.
As the deadline for Parkinson’s answers approaches, and as parliamentary inquiries gather momentum, the UK government and its legal institutions face searching questions about their readiness to confront the realities of modern espionage. The outcome of these investigations will likely shape not only the future of counter-espionage prosecutions but also the contours of Britain’s relationship with China for years to come.
For now, the collapse of the case stands as a cautionary tale about the difficulties of bringing espionage charges in a system that demands both ironclad evidence and political clarity—two things that, as this episode shows, don’t always arrive at the same time.
