The collapse of a high-profile spy trial involving two men accused of passing secrets to China has ignited a fierce political row in the United Kingdom, with both major parties trading accusations over who is to blame. Underlying the controversy is a single, telling edit: the removal of the word "enemy" from a key witness statement, a choice that ultimately proved pivotal for the legal case and now reverberates through the corridors of Westminster.
At the heart of the matter are Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry, who were charged under the Official Secrets Act 1911 in late 2023. Both men, who have always denied wrongdoing, faced allegations of spying for Beijing. But in September 2025, just a month before their trial was due to begin, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) abruptly dropped all charges, citing a lack of crucial evidence that China constituted an "enemy" of the UK at the relevant time.
The Official Secrets Act 1911 is notoriously clear: to secure a conviction for espionage, prosecutors must show that the accused passed information to an "enemy." This legal threshold, seemingly arcane, proved to be the undoing of the case. According to BBC and The Irish News, the term "enemy" was present in early drafts of a witness statement prepared by Matthew Collins, the government’s deputy national security adviser. But Collins ultimately struck the word from the final version, explaining in a letter to MPs that "it did not reflect government policy."
"These amendments reflected the DNSA's assessment of the evidence provided by operational partners based on his professional experience in advising the prime minister on national security threats, and to accurately represent the government's view of the range of national security threats posed by China," Collins wrote, as quoted by BBC. He further clarified, "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’s final statement, submitted on December 22, 2023, described China as an "epoch-defining challenge," echoing the language of the then-Conservative government’s Integrated Review Refresh 2023. However, he refrained from labeling China an "enemy." This distinction, while subtle to the layperson, had enormous legal consequences. The CPS, aware of the edit before bringing charges, ultimately found itself unable to meet the evidentiary requirements of the 1911 Act.
As the news broke, political blame games erupted. The Conservatives accused Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and his Labour government of allowing the case to collapse by failing to describe China as a national security threat. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch was particularly vocal, arguing, "the point is that the alleged spies were charged under a Conservative government and they were let off under a Labour government." She also emphasized that during her tenure, she had labeled China a "threat to our economy."
Labour, for its part, pointed to the chronology and the facts. Downing Street officials insisted there was no political interference from the current government, and that no minister or special adviser played any role in the drafting or submission of evidence. "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," the Prime Minister’s spokesperson told BBC. The Liberal Democrats, meanwhile, said the "latest revelations make a mockery of the Conservative leadership's faux outrage," urging Badenoch to "answer some of the very questions she's been so keen to ask."
The Crown Prosecution Service, led by Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson, maintained that the case fell apart because it could not obtain evidence from the government referring to China as a national security threat. Parkinson has faced calls to provide a fuller explanation for the collapse, but he has consistently cited the evidentiary gap as the deciding factor. According to The Irish News, "insufficient evidence being provided by the government that Beijing represented a threat to the UK at the time of the alleged offences" was at the root of the prosecution's decision.
Behind the scenes, the process was fraught with legal caution and bureaucratic protocol. Collins, having been asked by Counter Terrorism Police in August 2023 to act as a witness and support the "enemy" description, worked with legal counsel and junior officials to ensure his statement was both factually accurate and aligned with government policy. Once finalized, the statement was sent to then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and his special advisers. Prosecutors were informed in December 2023—before charges were brought—that Collins could not call China an "enemy." Two further witness statements followed in February and August 2025, but the government’s position remained unchanged.
Attorney General Lord Hermer, representing Labour, has also been drawn into the fray. In evidence submitted to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy (JCNSS), Hermer revealed he was informed on September 3, 2025, of the decision to drop the case. At the request of DPP Parkinson, he kept this information confidential until both police and defendants were notified. Hermer insisted, "there is nothing unusual in the law officers being requested to keep information about individual prosecution decisions confidential even from senior colleagues." He further clarified, "I was not consulted on the decision, nor would it be appropriate for me to have any involvement in, or objection to, the decision to discontinue on evidential grounds."
The JCNSS, made up of senior MPs and peers, has now launched an inquiry into the case. Evidence from Collins, Hermer, and others has been published, and further hearings are expected. Darren Jones, another key figure, noted in his letter to the committee that Collins’ three witness statements were "consistent" in their evaluation of the threat posed by China, but stressed that "this government’s position is immaterial" as the prosecution’s case rests on the policy in place at the time of the alleged offences.
As the dust settles, Downing Street continues to assert that no political interference occurred, and that the government’s hands were tied by the need to avoid influencing the course of justice. "What is relevant in a criminal case of this nature is the government’s position at the time of the alleged offences," the Prime Minister’s spokesman reiterated, as reported by The Irish News.
Despite the political fireworks, the fate of Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry now seems sealed—at least in the eyes of the law. The case, which once promised to be a landmark in the UK’s approach to espionage and foreign interference, has instead become a cautionary tale about the intersection of policy, law, and politics. The ongoing parliamentary inquiry may yet yield more answers, but for now, the story stands as a stark reminder of how a single word, or its absence, can change everything.
