In a political drama that has sent ripples through Westminster, the collapse of a high-profile espionage case involving two men accused of spying for China has ignited fierce debate over Britain’s approach to national security and its economic ties with Beijing. The fallout has exposed deep divisions between the country’s major parties, with accusations and denials flying over who bears responsibility for the case’s demise and what it means for the United Kingdom’s future security posture.
The saga began in April 2024, when Christopher Cash, a former parliamentary researcher, and Christopher Berry were charged under the Official Secrets Act. Authorities alleged that between December 2021 and February 2023, the two men gathered and provided information prejudicial to the safety and interests of the British state—information that could have proven “useful to an enemy,” according to court documents cited by AFP and The Sunday Times. Both Cash and Berry have consistently denied any wrongdoing.
Yet, after two years of legal wrangling, the case came to an abrupt halt last month. In September 2025, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) dropped all charges, and the men were acquitted in court. The reason? As Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson explained, while there was sufficient evidence when charges were first brought, a precedent set by another spying case earlier in the year meant that, for a successful prosecution, China would have needed to be officially designated a “threat to national security” at the time of the alleged offenses. The government, however, had not done so.
This legal technicality proved fatal. The 2021 Integrated Review had described China as a threat to “economic security,” but the 2023 update stopped short of labeling Beijing a national security threat. Instead, the review referred to China as an “epoch-defining and systemic challenge,” though it did acknowledge that the Chinese Communist Party could pose a threat to “our people, prosperity and security.”
With the case in tatters, political blame games erupted. The Conservative opposition pounced, seeking to keep up pressure on Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour government. On October 13, 2025, senior Tories—including shadow home secretary Chris Philp and shadow Cabinet Office minister Alex Burghart—wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions, asking whether the prosecution could be restarted if the government were to provide the necessary evidence that China is a national security threat. Their letter, widely reported by BBC and Press Association, stated, “If the government were to provide the evidence that the CPS had requested, this would enable you to restart the prosecution.”
But legal experts quickly pointed out that the principle of double jeopardy, which has protected Britons from repeated prosecution for the same crime for over 800 years, would prevent any such move. The Official Secrets Act, under which Cash and Berry were charged, is not among the rare exceptions—such as murder or rape—where a retrial might be possible if new and compelling evidence arises. Once acquitted, the men cannot face the same charges again.
Still, the political heat showed no signs of cooling. Much of the scrutiny focused on Jonathan Powell, the government’s national security adviser, after The Sunday Times reported he had urged dropping the case to avoid jeopardizing Chinese investment in the UK. Starmer’s spokesman was unequivocal in response, calling the claim “entirely false.” Security minister Dan Jarvis echoed this in Parliament, telling MPs that Powell “was not involved in any decisions about the substance of the evidence.” Jarvis explained, “Of course, [the national security adviser] takes part in discussions about national security and diplomatic relations. That is literally his job. But any discussions were on the basis that the case would be going ahead and how to handle the implications.”
Jarvis further clarified that it was deputy national security adviser Matthew Collins who provided a crucial witness statement in December 2023, with additional statements submitted in February and July 2025. “Ministers and special advisers did not take decisions about that evidence and they were not cited on the contents,” Jarvis insisted, adding that all evidence provided was based on the law and the government’s position on China at the time of the alleged offenses. He laid blame for the case’s collapse on “antiquated legislation” that had not been updated by the previous Conservative government.
The Official Secrets Act of 1911, under which the charges were brought, has since been replaced by the 2023 National Security Act. Jarvis argued that this new law closed “the loopholes that have been exposed by this particular case.”
For their part, the Conservatives were not buying it. Party leader Kemi Badenoch accused the government of putting economic interests ahead of national security, telling Sky News, “The trial has collapsed because for months and months, the government has been refusing to give the CPS vital information. This wasn’t a mistake. This wasn’t a misunderstanding. This looks like a deliberate decision to collapse the case and curry favour with the regime in China.” She also suggested that “closer economic ties with China were more important than due process and our national security.”
The Liberal Democrats joined the chorus of criticism, with foreign affairs spokesperson Calum Miller calling on the government to “come clean on why this case fell apart” and to publish all correspondence between the deputy national security adviser and the CPS. “The government’s attempts to duck scrutiny and scapegoat a single official simply won’t wash. It’s inconceivable that neither Keir Starmer nor his national security adviser knew what evidence was being submitted in such an important case. The buck for this fiasco ultimately stops with the prime minister,” Miller said, as quoted by BBC.
Labour deputy leadership contender Lucy Powell, meanwhile, voiced disappointment at the case’s collapse. “People need to know there are consequences if they’re trying to infiltrate our democratic processes in this regard, through all party parliamentary groups or working for an MP. These are absolutely sacrosanct, and people need to know that there are consequences if they’re infiltrating our politics for nefarious means,” she told Press Association.
Amid the political squabbling, the security services have not stood idle. MI5’s National Protective Security Authority has published new guidance for politicians, warning MPs that they are potential targets for foreign spies. The advisory specifically named China, Russia, and Iran as particular risks to British institutions—a sobering reminder that, even as the courtroom drama ends, the threat of espionage remains very real.
As the dust settles, one thing is clear: the collapse of the Cash and Berry case has exposed not only legal loopholes and political fault lines, but also the ongoing challenge of balancing national security with economic priorities in a world where the lines between friend and foe are increasingly blurred.
